RE: Names and numbers

Actually, it's pretty simple for iSeries developers: you use WDSC
standard edition, preferably the latest version.  You get the latest
version by ordering a refresh of 5722-WDS, feature code 2656.  Only WDSC
has the remote systems explorer (RSE) which is what you are using to
develop iSeries applications.   I use WDSC for both traditional 5250
programs and client/server applications.

WDSC standard edition version 6.0 is available with unlimited licenses
free of charge to customers with valid software maintenance for 5722-WDS
at V5R2+.  You CAN still get WDSC version 6.0 for V5R1, but only if you
follow a special procedure which IBM established after I complained long
and hard about it, and only until September 30th.

You only need WDSC advanced if you want EJBs, EGL, UML(!), Portal,
ClearCase or WebFacing.  It costs about $4500, but I'm unsure as to
whether pricing is unlimited, tiered or per user.  Start at the
following URL to learn more about the various WDSC features:

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/wdt400/

The other Rational products are only needed if you plan to develop
applications using the Rational model.  The problem there is that, as
far as I have been able to discern, there is no desire on the part of
the Rational developers to acknowledge the existence of (much less
integrate with) the iSeries.

Joe


> From: Dijk, Bas v
> 
> RAD, WDSCi, WDSC (advanced), WAS, version 5.1.2, version 6, version
> 6.0.0.x, refresh packs, included in software licences or not?, etc.
etc.
> 
> Sorry, but I don´t seem to get it anymore.
> 
> Is there no URL somewhere that can give me a simple overview of the
> current available developper tools, there names, version number, main
> features and which licence is needed (and what they cost)? A list of
> useful available plug-ins would also be nice.
> 
> As software developer I'm currently using Websphere Developer Studio
> Client for iSeries version 5.1.2.4 mainly to develop traditional 5250
> applications (RPG), I would like to know which set of tools would be a
> 'best fit' for me (and my colleagues) at this time.