Re: open source IBM i. was Re: From RGP to ¿Java ?

James,

See inline:

At 5/11/09 11:38 AM, you wrote:

I guess I need to understand what you mean by "native". I don't think
something that only runs on Windows or only runs on Linux is a viable
solution these days. I would think that would be up to the developer what OS
to develop the GUI for.

The client can theoretically be any platform. By "native" I mean that the languages and API's will directly support sending the commands and maybe even the content of the GUI. A simple approach could be some DDS extensions, accessible via an extension to the EXFMT keyword. But I don't want to get into the implementation now. I just believe that folks in the IBM labs have the smarts to implement this, if IBM chooses to allow it. Plus, it's long overdue.

The output of VARPG is Java. Why not just use Java instead of trying to get
VARPG to output Java? I know it's another language to learn, but I think OO
is MUCH better for UI than RPG ever can/should be. I think making RPG to OO
style will break how great it is for back-end business rules.

Java has a different paradigm, has different syntax, and can have performance issues. RPG'ers do not want to have to deal with another complex language in order to get a GUI implemented.

I agree though that third party products are not the way to go. I don't
think there is any good way to convert what's already done to some nice UI.

Why not? A little tweaking should be all it needs.

It just plain needs to be re-written. I think that's where we need to change
our thought process. We don't need to convert some DDS written in 1989 to
some fancy UI.

Maybe via a CSS type of control file?

It just needs to be redeveloped. It would be very expensive
and not really an easy thing to do, but waiting just makes it worse.

I don't know how expensive it would be, since IBM has developed several products that might be able to be utilized (e.g. the VARPG components), nut I do agree that it needs to be done and really soon!

-mark

--
James R. Perkins


On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 21:18, M. Lazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> James,
>
> There are quite a few vendors that provide GUI enabling
> utilities. They all have downsides, including: Cost, effort to
> integrate, keeping the green screen and GUI code is synch, needing to
> learn another language (in some cases.)
>
> A GUI is not necessarily stateless. Why can't DDS be event
> driven? The basic converted functionality can be stateful. VARPG
> has shown that RPG can do the job. One of the wonderful features of
> this system is that the major functionality is INTEGRATED.
>
> Us developers would definitely use an integrated, native GUI. Some
> of the necessary keywords are already in DDS (useable by the
> almost(?) defunt WSG product.)
>
> One caveat is that it all the components must be a no-charge part
> of the OS, so software vendors can write to it without concern that
> their customer base would not have the LPP.
>
> As an aside, I just spoke to a colleague that is going through a
> similar situation with his clients. With the younger management
> making decisions, they are looking to move away from their trusty IBM
> midrange computer and looking at something snazzier. It's a losing
> battle! Even the traditional Midrange Faithful are deserting. This
> hasn't happened in such large numbers until the last few years.
>
> If we use a third party product, we much pass along the costs of
> that product to the customer. That tends to make our product price
> uncompetitive. So, even though we might be in the running with a
> shiny GUI, we then lose on the price.
>
> I hope that IBM wakes up before it's too late and realizes that an
> integrated GUI is now a core requirement, not a fancy add-on.
>
> -mark
>
>
> At 5/10/09 01:44 PM, you wrote:
> >I have not been on a sales call, but most ERP vendors these days do offer
> a
> >GUI. It's usually just ran through something like Seagull and in general I
> >don't usually like them, but it's there.
> >
> >There are several GUI options. You can write a nice GUI in .NET, JavaSever
> >Faces/Pages, Swing, or even CGI.
> >
> >Well, they (IBM) had VisualAge RPG which not many people seemed to adopt
> >(before my time so I don't really know why). They have HATS and WebFacing,
> >not really a great option but it's there. Now there is EGL.
> >
> >The main problem as I see it is that most vendors don't usually want
> >re-write all their displays. That's what really needs to happen. I don't
> see
> >any feasable way to convert DDS to some fancy GUI. A native GUI needs to
> be
> >event driven which DDS and usally the controlling RPG are not. When
> someone
> >presses F3 you can't just lock the screen up and do what you would in RPG.
> >
> >So, you would have to re-create all your DDS and display controlling
> >programs anyway. Why does that have to be native? Why would it not make
> just
> >has much if not more sense to use an already created and proven
> technology?
> >
> >--
> >James R. Perkins
> >
> >
> >On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 21:04, M. Lazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > James,
> > >
> > > At 5/8/09 01:06 PM, you wrote:
> > > >I personally don't think that RPG needs a nice GUI like others do.
> > >
> > > Why do you say this? Have you gone on a sales call where your
> > > competition has the GUI and you don't? I have and it's not
> > > pretty. The non-GUI software barely has a chance. That's just the
> > > reality for most decision makers. They want brand new software that
> > > looks and feels brand new.
> > >
> > >
> > > >In the past IBM has tried to give us this and very few people did
> > > >anything with it, so they gave up and how can blame them.
> > >
> > > Did anyone find out WHY it failed? Was it too expensive? Too
> > > difficult to implement? To resource hungry? Too limited in
> functionality?
> > >
> > > I'm betting that it was one or more of the above reasons. That
> > > does NOT mean that we don't want / need a native GUI to make us
> > > competitive. The same way that IBM woke up and included TCP/IP as an
> > > integral part of i5/OS or risk losing the entire midrange business,
> > > they need to recognize that an integrated, native GUI is crucial to
> > > remaining viable.
> > >
> > > -mark