Dave
Eight years ago I was writing in Perl on the iSeries (yes Perl). When I
asked a question about performance I was referred to a 'specialist' (in IBM
UK) who hadn't written a Perl script that used more than one subroutine!
Mine used 50 plus...
So you could use Perl, you could use PHP, or IMVHO you could use ASP.NET 2.0
and SQL, making life a whole lot easier for yourself (if you can swallow the
Wintel pill). Using the IBM.NET Managed data provider is no more difficult
than using the standard .NET SQL provider, but you will need to learn
ASP.NET (VB.NET or C#) in either case there are plenty of books (resources)
around that will help if you should need them.
I guess your going to have to choose one route or another, so good luck.
Best Regards
Maurice
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Dave Odom
Sent: 31 May 2007 21:01
To: 'Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Recommendations of webdevelopment architecture/tool
for diverse i5 access...
Maurice,
Ahhh, interesting. What other language could be used as a sweetner/glue
other than RPG?
Are you saying if I got books on iSeries Access for Windows it would tell me
all I need to know about IBMs .NET Managed Data Provider?
Thanks,
Dave
"Maurice O'Prey" <maurice.oprey@xxxxxxxxx> 5/31/2007 12:18 >>>
I Use .NET but not only MS only products, I use the IBM .NET Managed Data
Provider (AKNA iSeries Access for Windows V5R3) and (as I have said
before)
a little bit of RPG thrown in as a sweetener... (or Glue)
Regards
Maurice
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Shane_Cessna@xxxxxxx
Sent: 31 May 2007 20:04
To: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Recommendations of web development architecture/tool
for diverse i5 access...
Something else to stir the pot...
While developing in .NET may be great and all, aren't you painting yourself
into a corner using M$ only products?
My experience in using CGIDEV2 has been wonderful...we've converted all of
our webfaced apps to CGI and haven't looked back...users have no complaints
whatsoever about performance or look & feel...
Shane Cessna
Senior iSeries Programmer
North American Lighting, Inc.
217.465.6600 x7776
<Matt.Haas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
05/31/2007 02:00 PM
Please respond to
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
<web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [WEB400] Recommendations of web development architecture/tool for
diverse i5 access...
<snip>
One advantage to using asp.net over rpg-cgi is your programmers get
to
learn C# !
There's always one comment in your posts that throws me for a complete
loop.
I fully agree that learning another language can only benefit ones
existing
and new RPG development, but to say that is an advantage is just an
odd
way
to create an advantage for the Microsoft approach. I don't know,
maybe
I am
just grumpy today.
I will say that having prebuilt components saves coding most of the
time.
And then 10% of the time they get in the way. My experience is based
on
using Apache's MyFaces (JSF implementation) and ASP.NET's could be
much
better.
</snip>
Based on comments I heard from the person here converting an .ASP
application to a full on .Net application, it's not. The components
are
great if they do exactly what you want and you want to do things the
Microsoft way (this caused lots of problems with a few things). If
what
you're trying to do doesn't meet that criteria, you're either
developing
components from scratch or writing kludgy code.
Matt
midrange.com
