RE: Who Uses WebSphere Express? -- WEB400

Okay, now you have me going <grin>

> From: Karl Lauritzen
> 
> We have no desire for Java we do all development in RPG/CGI.

Okay, this simply states your bias.  If Java proved itself to be more
cost-efficient, would you consider it?  Or are you just anti-Java?

> We have had bad experiences with Java and recently that confirms our
> opinion of it. A timeclock solution that used Java and would never
work
> right or if it did very slow and sucked the 400 dry.

Another thing is this: WebSphere does NOT mean Java.  I just got done
doing a four-day swing giving all-day seminars on this very topic.  With
just a thin veneer of Java (basically just to convert EBCDIC to ASCII),
you can create a powerful JSP Model II interface with an RPG back end.
It's lightening fast -- so fast, in fact, it gives acceptable response
time OVER A CELL PHONE.

> We had an 820 then and have an 810 now. IBM contention was that
> Websphere for use a web server needed to be separate from our
production
> administration system for speed and security. Once we saw the costs
and
> no other alternatives were even offered we did not bother to look at
it
> very hard.

These are good reasons -- you might want extra security and you might
want to offload the web server.  But they are business decisions.  I run
WebSphere Express quite nicely on a little model 270, with 370 CPW and
ZERO interactive.

> I agree I am a bigot about this but for what we do (and what I hear
form
> a lot of others) running RPG/CGI on the http is cheaper, easier and
> faster (development and use).

I agree that RPG-CGI is cheaper, but not much.  In many cases, it may be
no more than some extra memory.  And if cost is really the issue, that's
when offloading the application server to a cheap Linux box is a great
deal, and something you CANNOT do with RPG-CGI.

RPG-CGI may also be faster for initial development, but you should take
a look at how a thin-veneer Java architecture can really save you time
and money.  Because you put all your UI into an industry standard JSP
page, you can hire someone at a relatively low cost to make it pretty,
while you develop the back end.

> Now websphere may have its place for
> others. But for most business that have staff in place you need to
look
> at RPG/CGI and http.

This simply isn't true.  Most companies will probably need some sort of
Java help at some point.  If you ever plan on doing things like web
services or XML, you will either need Java or .NET.  Assuming you don't
want a Microsoft shop, then the thin-veneer JSP Model II solution will
get you to market quickly while at the same time positioning you to
begin learning Java.


> And I think most will
> agree websphere is the latest big push by IBM and little mention of
> RPG/CGI. At least give people some alternatives. That is what I like
> about the 400 it can do most anything and everything and you can do it
> one way and me another.  Neither of us is wrong just what works best
for
> each of us.

I don't really worry about what IBM is pushing.  I just try to find the
best technology.  I won't tell you what is right or wrong for your
company, because I don't know your company, but I did want to address
some of the negative points you were making.  JSP is not slow, WebSphere
Express is not expensive, JSP technology is not hard to learn.  Now, if
your company is going to stay pure RPG forever, then obviously RPG-CGI
is the way to go.  But if you think you might want to use Java in the
future, then please check into JSP.

Joe