I'm a babe in the woods at this kind of thing - but -
since the 5250 data stream is probably stable and not being enhanced or changed at all, couldn't ibm quite easily have an option, maybe an hspec or fspec option, to write and read the 5250 data stream as xml?
Jim Horn
____________________________________________________
-----web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
From: web400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 09/16/2010 03:46PM
Subject: WEB400 Digest, Vol 8, Issue 300
Send WEB400 mailing list submissions to
web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
web400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
web400-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WEB400 digest..."
*** NOTE: When replying to this digest message, PLEASE remove all text unrelated to your reply and change the subject line so it is meaningful.
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Mike Wills)
2. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Booth Martin)
3. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen)
4. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Mike Wills)
5. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Aaron Bartell)
6. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Pete Helgren)
7. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Mike Wills)
8. Re: IBM i GUI Frameworks (Nathan Andelin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
message: 1
date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:05:31 -0500
from: Mike Wills <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: [WEB400] IBM i GUI Frameworks
What the open source application library people does is give options. A
person may hear there is a way to "freshen up" their RPG programs easily
with a web interface. For little investment (only their time) they
can experiment and maybe eventually push live a web version of their
application. These people would never buy a commercial application because
management may not see any value in such a purchase. RPGUI and powerEXT (and
others) allow that developer to play in his down time with something new.
Now, that may lead them to buying a commercial product (with paid support)
in the future or to just "stay the course" on the framework they choose.
Now a smart businessperson would look at something like this and figure out
how to profit off an open framework. Maybe provide support for it. Do
consulting based on your expertise in the framework. Maybe take it to the
next level any make it easier to use, or just build a better product with a
migration path from the open framework. There are ways to make money on
free.
While licensing types is a valid subject, I don't feel that
is appropriate here (and frankly, I am getting tired of it). That should be
taken to the project forums of concern and be relevant to the projects
goals. The original question was about why the three projects don't work
together. Let's keep it to that, please.
This is my only 2 cents on the subject.
--
Mike Wills
http://mikewills.info
------------------------------
message: 2
date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:53:30 -0500
from: Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: [WEB400] IBM i GUI Frameworks
I have been hearing the term "crowd sourcing" being used, too. If I am
understanding the idea of it, there is value added with this approach
because a whole crowd of qualified people are ready & willing to get the
pig to snort, thereby shortening development cycles, enhancing
solutions, and broadening the product's adaptability.
On 9/16/2010 12:05 PM, Mike Wills wrote:
What the open source application library people does is give options. A
person may hear there is a way to "freshen up" their RPG programs easily
with a web interface. For little investment (only their time) they
can experiment and maybe eventually push live a web version of their
application. These people would never buy a commercial application because
management may not see any value in such a purchase. RPGUI and powerEXT (and
others) allow that developer to play in his down time with something new.
Now, that may lead them to buying a commercial product (with paid support)
in the future or to just "stay the course" on the framework they choose.
Now a smart businessperson would look at something like this and figure out
how to profit off an open framework. Maybe provide support for it. Do
consulting based on your expertise in the framework. Maybe take it to the
next level any make it easier to use, or just build a better product with a
migration path from the open framework. There are ways to make money on
free.
While licensing types is a valid subject, I don't feel that
is appropriate here (and frankly, I am getting tired of it). That should be
taken to the project forums of concern and be relevant to the projects
goals. The original question was about why the three projects don't work
together. Let's keep it to that, please.
This is my only 2 cents on the subject.
--
Mike Wills
http://mikewills.info
------------------------------
message: 3
date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:55:21 +0200
from: Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: [WEB400] IBM i GUI Frameworks
Den 16/09/10 17.01, Nathan Andelin skrev:
From: Aaron Bartell<aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx>
Maybe you need to come right out and ask what it is you have
on your mind so we can put this to rest?
I just did ask what what on my mind. But I agree that the questions and answers
are getting circular. It appears that the best thing for me to do is just wait
for you to put several thousand more hours into your framework, and have a half
dozen copy cats incorporate it into their proprietary commercial offerings
without so much as returning to give you the time of day, then see if you change
your mind about the LGPL. If I understand correctly, that's why the organizers
of the GNU project are asking contributors to stop using the LGPL. We've see
the same evolution with Zend licensing.
If you use LGPL (or Mozilla or Apache), it is actually a _success_ if
the software is being used in proprietary commercial offerings.
I still think that the future value of software is not in who uses the
actual bytes, but who need help in doing so. If you have critical mass
in users, the few percent who need help give sufficient income.
midrange.com
