Re: 520 pricing structure

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:15:24 -0500
 "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Brad Stone
> > 
> > Sorry, I guess you weren't clear when you made your
> > statement.    As for "inferior", we opinions are
> like...
> >  *cough*  :)
> 
> Yeah, but my opinion is right <smile>.

Of course it is... <smirk>

> 
> >From a purely objective standpoint:
> 
> 1. JSP UI is compiled to machine code, whereas CGI code
> is template
> driven and must be at the very least be read from a pool
> each time.  And
> unless you store all of your snippets in memory (which is
> one big pool),
> you'll have to read the stuff from disk.

Memory is cheap.  Memory is fast.  If that's the issue,
then straight CGI (no templates) would be even faster.  In
my speed tests I saw no speed differences between embedding
HTML in the RPG program and with eRPG SDK.  Not even with
10000 hits.

No overhead from a JVM involved.  No extra sockets/data
queue/etc traffic involved for data access.

> 
> 2. The JSP portion can be moved off of the iSeries onto a
> $500 server
> box.  This can offload that nasty ol' JVM from the
> iSeries if memory is
> your big concern, but even more importantly it can allow
> your user
> interface to be in the DMZ, totally separate from your
> production
> iSeries.
>

So?  Then you're supporting 2 machines and 2 OSes.  And for
$500 you'll get a really nice Dell with a CRT montior and
an 80gb hd, 256k memory.  Hardley enough machine for any
real traffic, especially now since you've added more
traffic at the cable level between the machines.  
 
> 3. The JSP tag library is an industry standard,
> understood by a very
> large community of programmers.  The CGI syntax you use
> (including the
> names of the procedures you call) depends on the
> variation of the CGI
> library you use.

The JSTL was created by the Java Community.  Think everyone
uses them?  Highly doubt it.  But at least we all use the
same RPG op-codes as standards (no choice).

I would be happy to name my procedures the same as CGIDEV2
or others, but there are subtle differences in my
procedures and how they function with the product.  I also
wanted to give them "more descriptive names".  You can
always rename them in the prototype definitions if you
really want to standardize them...

> 
> Those are the most glaring architectural deficiencies of
> the RPG-CGI
> approach.

Glaring to some, far fetched to others, meaningless to
others (those who could give a ratt's *ss or understand
it's "just HTML" and the delivery mechanism isn't all that
complicated).  

It also depends on who's seminar they attend at
COMMON/DevCon, etc.

Brad