Re: WDSCI-L Digest, Vol 5, Issue 598

["John W. Ebrecht" <johnw.ebrecht@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just read Shane's interesting article, I really appreciate hearing what
works and what doesn't out there. Thought I'd add this link to the
conversation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cgidev2


On 8/8/07, Shane_Cessna@xxxxxxx <Shane_Cessna@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Shannon,
>
>   Here's a link to an article I wrote for IMHO.midrange.com...hth....
>
>   http://imho.midrange.com/2007/06/13/webfacing-vs-cgidev2/
>
>   Shane Cessna
>   Senior iSeries Programmer
>   North American Lighting, Inc.
>   217.465.6600 x7776
>   -----wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     message: 8
>     date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:57:09 -0500
>     from: "Shannon ODonnell" <sodonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     subject: [WDSCI-L] WebFacing - Is it ready for primetime?
>
>     Hello List,
>
>     I have a couple of clients who currently use Seagull's JWalk product.
>
>     They are happy enough with it, I guess, except that they dislike
> greatly
>     the
>     update process of the activex component of it as that clogs their
> entire
>     network while it is happening.
>
>     The biggest problem they have with it though is that they now have an
>     antagonistic relationship with their old vendor or their primary
>     application, which JWalk is used to GUI-ize, and they want nothing
> more
>     to
>     do with that vendor.
>
>     To complicate things, that vendor has the developer client to make
>     changes
>     to their Jwalk screens and to add new Jwalk panels, etc.. for new
>     screens.
>     And that's not a good thing because there is no chance at all of these
>     Clients working things out with the vendor and so soon, jwalk apps are
>     going
>     to start failing as the client has other programmers create new 5250
>     screens
>     and modify existing screens, etc..
>
>     I personally would like to take them the WebFaced route instead for a
>     variety of reasons:
>
>     -          Free - No licensing fees like they have  with Seagull
>     -          Easy to convert existing and new screens
>     -          Customizable
>     -          No client software (Which is a big big plus for them)
>
>     My question for the list is:  For those of you who use WebFacing, is
> it
>     now
>     stable enough and robust enough to be used for daily, heavy volume,
>     production use?   I personally have done little more than play with it
>     for
>     the last several years. The last time I really spent a lot of time
> with
>     the
>     product was about 5 years ago and at that time, it wasn't the most
>     stable
>     tool in the world and it required you to do all they manual "fixes"
> and
>     coding of config files, and such, to make it work (even to get it to
>     compile
>     sometimes).
>
>     Does it now support most DDS keywords (Print supported yet?), and will
>     it
>     crash under heavy volumes?   Is it still buggy?
>
>     Your experiences with the product would be most appreciated.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Shannon O'Donnell
> --
> This is the Websphere Development Studio Client for iSeries  (WDSCI-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
> or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.