If you were able to take "configuring" or mapping out of the Java code
(because really it serves a simple purpose) and allow it to just know how to
render the data it is passed, well then this architecture would be just
fine. But it's the fact that a programmer has to touch a piece of data
twice in the UI layer when using Java vs. once when using RPG.
Back to the contradicting. I am strictly talking about server side
technologies and you and I both know that Javascript doesn't compare in
complexity to Java on the iSeries (or any othe platform). Sure, generating
Javascript is complex but I can count on one hand the number I people I have
heard doing that (two total - you and Brand Stone). Most of the time people
simply aren't using Javascript as much as the highest end sites out there
(obviously AJAX is catching on).
I'm sorry, but this drum beat that Java is too hard but JavaScript is not
is simply indefensible.
We'll have to differ I guess. I just don't see the two being the same - in
use or function.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:23 AM
To: 'Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Windows vs i5/OS as a platform
From: albartell
Yes, you have a much thinner UI than most, but it still requires
coding for each new screen and field added right? If that is true
then you need two knowledge sets to create/modify a
screen/application. A programmer could just as easily code an error
in the Java logic/mapping that is reading from the data queue as they
could in the RPG side, and it wont be blatantly known where it is
until you dig in.
Well, okay, I guess. But if you're advocating single-language solutions on
the server because it's too hard for the poor RPG programmer to add one more
field conversion to a list of field conversions in Java but at the same time
saying that those same programmers can handle JavaScript, then you're really
contradicting yourself.
That is where having a single language shines (which I believe you
agree with, but you don't put enough weight on the fact that Java
isn't a lightweight language for many of the people that would have to
use it in this architecture). Yes you have to do HTML, CSS, and
Javascript in both, but in a RPG CGI scenario you only need to know
RPG as the primary serverside language, not RPG AND Java.
If you have to program JavaScript, then you have to know enough of the
syntax to handle a simple conversion. And if you can't even handle that,
then you might want to stay away from web design.
I'm sorry, but this drum beat that Java is too hard but JavaScript is not is
simply indefensible. And using RPG to generate JavaScript (which is what
you need to do to build any but the simplest interfaces) is about as hard as
you can get! I know, I do it for a living <grin>.
Final note: if you really can't handle even the tiny amount of Java required
for a thin-veneer Java interface, then you might want to take a look at EGL.
EGL does all of that for you, and even gives you a WYSIWYG painter for the
web page, something you don't have with RPG-CGI.
Joe
--
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list To post a
message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list
options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/web400.
midrange.com
