> I have heard that the web-facing procedures
> effectively run as "batch jobs" in the operating
> system

True.  They ARE batch jobs.

> and that IBM sells you only the "governed" CPW
> machines, effectively shutting down most/all of
> the interactive feature?

IBM will be thrilled to sell you a machine with interactive CPW if you
want it.  But the point of converting to WF is to avoid that expense.
After they are converted, your formerly interactive apps are now batch
apps with an Internet Explorer front end.

> What specific effects does this have on typical interactive
> programs that handle data entry or inquiry?

The apps now present their displays as HTML pages through IE, so they
can still interact with the end user.  The RPG parts run in batch.

> What about heavy transactional apps like
> Warehouse Management...through an
> RF device?

Will you still be using the RF device?  Then don't convert that app.
It will still run in QINTER just like it does today.

> If I ran an old fashioned 5250 program and
> did not send it through the "converter", would
> the job crawl slower than a turtle on valium?

Not unless you sold your interactive card back to IBM.  If you have 0
interactive CPW then your unconverted interactive programs will kick
the governor in and wreck the performance of the machine.

> What about performance in general?

The converted panels will probably be slower to render than actual
5250 panels on an actual 5250 terminal.

> Are HTML pages through web browser
> portals less stable than the good old dumb
> terminal or is there no real difference?

No, but I may be misunderstanding what you mean by 'stable.'

> What about a simple thing like your sign-on
> to qinter in the morning? Are you visible running
> out of qinter? Are any jobs running out of
> qinter if they are web-faced?

No.  WebFaced jobs are not running in QINTER.

> What about printkeys?

Don't know.

> How do the "green screens" look appearance wise
> if you are only converting them, not modifying them?

So-so.  What conversion could possibly create the exact look and feel
that you are really after?

> Anything you can think of would be very helpful
> to us in making this tough decision to convert
> to a web-sphere operation.

I believe WebFacing has value in being a first step to moving to a web
based UI.  I would not treat it as an ultimate goal, just a step.  It
will teach you about WAS and Apache, and as you progress it will teach
you about JSP and Java.  I personally don't recommend any
screen-scraper product unless you intend that your company absolutely
does not want to go to a web interface.

Finally, there are several alternatives to WebFacing that you really
should consider before making a decision.  aXes from
http://www.linomasoftware.com and PSC/400 from
http://www.plutabrothers.com  Don't rely on the web sites alone: call
them and talk with them.
  --buck




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.