|
Nathan, I don't think it's fair to compare auto-generated pages to something that was hand-coded. If you want big, you should have seen some of the HTML pages Microsoft Publisher spat out (Word's pretty good at making huge HTML too). There's probably a bunch of extraneous junk in those auto generated pages and plenty of things that should be externalized to allow for caching. There's no arguing that HTML streams are going to be bigger than 5250 streams but that has nothing to do with the technology generating the HTML. Also, if it were possible to do some of the things in 5250 that you can do with HTML (embed graphics, change fonts, etc...), don't you thing the stream size would increase dramatically as well? What's wrong with planning and discipline? Isn't that the difference between coding and programming? Matt <snip> The last time I looked at HATS, which converts 5250 screens into HTML, I seem to recall the average page size being about 50 Kb. I've also worked with one .Net based tool named Revelation which generated an average page size over 100 Kb for database maintenance applications. Wouldn't you agree that generating large HTML streams, particularly with Java, consumes significant resources? Wouldn't you agree that it takes quite a bit of planning and discipline, or at least an additional framework to use JSPs properly? Do you really think my CPU estimates are FUD, or would the fact that your pages are 5 Kb in size be more of a credit to your design? <snip>
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.