RE: Re:Where are all of the /400's going.

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Nathan M. Andelin
>
> Now that I've begun marketing a framework for developing ILE based Web
> applications, I have an interest in this issue.  I hope companies will
> overcome their fear of the Internet and connect their 400s to the Web.
>
> I'd like to discuss specific fears, and talk about 400 solutions to those
> concerns, rather than the alternative idea of moving data and applications
> off the 400.  Any takers?

This thread certainly wasn't about moving applications off of the AS/400.
The only issue that was being discussed was the idea of access to secure and
unsecured data.  And perhaps that's the problem; we're still trying to put
all our data processing into the same box (we each have our own box, but
regardless we try to stuff all business requirements into that box).  No one
solution is going to fit all needs, even if they're all accessed via a
browser.

I don't think anybody would argue that a web page that serves up static
images is a different beast than a web-based order entry application.  And
of course, there's a wide gamut of different user needs in between.  It's my
contention that we need to think outside of the box and realize that
different requirements dictate different solutions.  The ease of
interconnectivity between those solutions is the key.

For example, a static public web page is not best served by an AS/400.  I'm
not saying it can't be done, just that there are far cheaper alternatives.
If I go to a CFO who wants just a static web page and try to sell him an
AS/400, I'm probably not going to leave a very credible impression.

I think we need to define user needs by the business requirements, and then
map those to the best solutions, rather than start with a solution and try
to fit user requirements into it.  Your framework, my legacy revitalization,
encapsulated servers, each can probably fit a niche.  It's when we try to
use the same tool for every job that the process bogs down.

Joe