Re: Installing a web change (was: importing a rpg orsqlrpg)

> From: Mark Phippard
>
> Just so it is clear up front, I am not debating whether your architecture
> is better than WebFacing, I think you architecture sounds very well
> designed and thought out.

Yeah, let's clear the air here.  I obviously compete directly with WebFacing
(and it's hard for me, since I have to actually charge money; my wife is
funny about things like food and clothing).


> 1)  You criticize WebFacing for using war/ear deployment but this comes
> straight from J2EE.  Can you explain how you install a PSC/400 application
> in WebSphere without packaging it in a war or ear file?

Okay, this is my major point: The J2EE deployment model is a flawed beast.
In fact, it's really pretty lame.  It is nothing more than cramming
everything from your directory into a ZIP file.  There's no reason to do it
this way, and no reason to use the directory names that they do (WEB-INF?
Who came up with THAT name?).  It's just one more example of lazy
programming.  Not only that, but you can only redeploy the entire directory
structure!  There's no concept whatsoever of partial updates!  Or shared
resources between WAR files, or any of a number of other things that are
required for real application development.

WebSphere 3.5 didn't use this silliness - it allowed me as a programmer to
set up the directory structure I needed.  It didn't handhold me, and frankly
I think it's a big step sideways, if not backwards, for later versions of
WAS to use this J2EE crud.  At least make it optional, fer goshsakes.

So, how do you deploy something without useing a WAR/EAR file?  You copy the
pieces into the directory structure!  It's not all that difficult.  You can
use a ZIP file, you can use an installation program, you can do whatever you
want.  Do you know how to copy something into the IFS?  If you do, you know
how to deploy an application.  It ain't rocket science.


> 2)  You say that your architecture is easier than WebFacing because you
> just have to copy the changed JSP to the server, yet this is exactly the
> same way you do it with WebFacing (albeit with a lot more files).  Again,
> why is it acceptable when you do it, but unacceptable when Buck does it?

PSC/400 deploys the objects automatically as an integrated part of the
CNVPGM command.  If WebFacing did it that way, then I'd be okay with it.

Joe