Re: AW: AW: Open Access to be generally available as part of the RPG compiler

Hi Bernd

I still do not think it is true - in the general sense - that OA binds a company only to a couple vendors. It depends on what you want to use OAR for - it is not just for refactoring screens. Now if what you need to do is to present a browser interface for your application, yes, you have fewer choices, perhaps.

There are other vendors who provide tools for this refactoring. IBM itself has Webfacing and HATS. BCD has something, I believe, that does not use OAR. Lansa is another, I believe. All do have cost to go along with it, both in initial cost and in effort.

In your case, all those screens means a lot of work, as you said - it won't happen in a month. On the other hand, I can imagine that you are looking for the best ways to compete successfully with the wintel solutions.

So, I think OA is just one of several options for refactoring - its use for handling display file IO is a huge effort, so far as I can see - you need to know a lot about the subject, and the several vendors have done that work - ASNA has a long history, as do look and Profound. And the others I mentioned, as well as Seagull and maybe others.

But none of this means that OA is the bad guy here - these alternatives for refactoring have always been here - those that have chosen to implement a solution using OA are just another alternative.

Bon chance in your efforts to hold a strong place in your market.
Vern

On 2/3/2012 12:50 AM, Bernd Dworrak wrote:

Henrik Rützou wrote:

To me RPG OA is a Program Ephemera. It’s like CCP on System/3 where everybody knew that this wasn’t going to last and CCP also completely disappeared with the introduction of System/34-36-38 with RPG 5250 support through FORMATS and DDS....
What I don’t like about RPG OA is that it binds the programmer to a couple of proprietary vendors of handlers and thereby whatever these vendor tools in their “black box” can do...

And

On the other hand... I think Henrik is forgetting that there are millions of already written programs that use the display file paradigm, and that the amount of work needed to refactor all of those programs might be prohibitive.
95% can be rewritten in one month!...

Well, although I think that RPG OA will last more than a few months, I will explain my skepticism to make it more clear.
We have about one thousand different display files and each has a number of five formats on an average without the special adaptations for individual customers.
And there are new DSPF coming each and every month.
This means that one has to refactor about five thousand screens and not only that, but to make them work in a correct way by testing!
How should this be done within a reasonable period at reasonable cost?
Don't forget, our company is an ISV and we have to face the competition with others that build applications for "WINTEL" machines.
This means, even if we would license a tool from one of the handler vendors and pay a lot of bucks for it, we will still have the problem to calculate the costs for our customers.
You know how good the system i is, but it is more expensive than a x86 server.
In most cases the user of a system I also pays more money for the software. An example: compare T.L. Ashford labeling software and Seagull Scientific Bartender ;-)
So I can understand the reasoning that RPG OA binds companies like ours to a couple of proprietary vendors of handlers and their refactoring tools.
I cannot understand how - in our case - 95 percent of the code could be rewritten in one month. This is absolutely unthinkable.

Greetings
Bernd Dworrak, Dipl.-Phys.