RE: RPG.NET -- RPG400-L

> From: Walden H. Leverich III
> 
> No argument. However, I don't see that as being contrary to using the
> iSeries as a database. All your business rules are embedded in your
stored
> procs (RPG/Cobol/CL/etc) and the stored procs access your actually
tables.

Yes, if you recode all of your business logic as stored procedures, you
may be able to do this.  I haven't yet seen an entire ERP system reduced
to stored procedures, so I don't know if this is feasible.  For less
complex problem sets, this approach is probably an option.  But see,
that's the problem.  Most non-trivial solutions require a non-trivial
approach, such as a message-based client/server system.

For example, how do you create an order entry system using only stored
procedures as entry points?  At what point do you commit an order, and
how do you do it?  Remember, this will require sending an indeterminate
number of records, of multiple types, from the client to the server.
This is typically where the stored procedure design philosophy breaks
down.  Other areas are things like BOM updates and other "full object"
updates, where editing requires seeing entire sets of records at once.
With a stored procedure approach, you'd have to update each component
record individually (probably in a temporary file), then somehow execute
an "edit" on that data, before finally committing it from temporary
files to live files.  Not exactly the design of choice.

Finally, I guess if you're using the entire ODBC system as nothing more
than a way to call programs on the host, then you're doing client/server
anyway.  But in that case, you're not just using the iSeries as a
database.  You're using ODBC as a wrapper over remote procedure calls,
which is a different architecture.


> And coding JSP locks me into JSP. (BTW, coding RPG locks me into RPG,
> Cobol
> locks me into Cobol, Java locks me into java, Pascal locks... You get
the
> point)

ASP locks me into a very limited number of application servers.  JSP
allows me to run on just about everything else.  And there is a huge
difference between locking in your front end and your back end.  If you
don't know what server your back end systems will be running on three
years from now, you have a huge problem.  On the opposite side, chances
are you have no idea what UI devices you'll need to support three years
from now.  They are completely different problem sets.

And in the problem set of UI, ASP is far less standard and far more
restrictive than JSP.


> >I can't justify spending $1000 for a
> >non-standard web development platform,
> 
> All depends on how you define "standard." Last I checked Sun hasn't
> submitted Java to any standards body and Microsoft has submitted C#
and
> CLR to a standards committee. Oh, and you can buy the competitive
> upgrade from MS for ~$500.

I'll use the simple "number of users" approach, just as Microsoft has
for so many years.  In fact, until Microsoft submitted DLR to a
standards body, none of the Softies ever said anything about it.  It's
interested how you folks change your definition of "standard" based on
what you need.

Personally, I couldn't care less about standards committees.  Other than
ANSI, they're in general pretty useless (although I understand that the
IEEE folks are also pretty damned good).  While ANSI takes a while to
produce things, what it produces are usable, working standards that
developers can use, as opposed to most of the "standards" committees
today that produce standards that don't actually work in the real world.

I do find it terribly amusing that Microsoft is suddenly this big
proponent of "standards", though <grin>.

Thanks for pointing that out the competitive upgrade, Walden!  When I
first looked, I thought that the competitive upgrades were only from
other MS products, but way at the bottom they list all the other
products, many of which I own.

So, in your opinion, is VS.NET Professional equivalent and/or better
than WDSC?  If so, it may be worth the $500 to give it a shot.

Joe