[WEB400] RE: Web UI design vs 5250 UI design

[Darryl Millington <Darryl_Millington@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G'day Buck,

When taking a COOL:2E (Formerly Synon/2E) application to the web there are 
several approaches you can use:

1. Use a tool like COOL:2E Web Option to get your 5250 application running 
using HTML and simple JavaScript. This option requires no effort on the 
programming side of the application and they can be run on either a 5250 
emulator or browser. There are several different strategies for 
implementing the Web Option as well - you can let the tool do the 
conversions on the fly with the Just-In-Time HTML conversion and the 
screens look like an embedded 5250 emulator, you can generate HTML 
skeletons from the DDS and data model which can be customised to include 
some additional presentation changes, or you can build your HTML skeletons 
in a website tool (I use NetObjects Fusion from http://www.netobjects.com 
for this strategy) which allow you to design your interface to be 
consistent with your other web pages.

2. Use Joe Pluntas Revitalisation (Joe, I have your book and I think it is 
a great solution. I am trying to convince Computer Associates to change 
their generators to support your approach.) technique to get your 5250 
applications to the web. I am looking at ways in which the current 
RPG/COBOL generators can be modified to support this approach as it saves 
significant costs in Interactive resource. I think Joe has said enough 
about this approach in the past.

3. Use Componentisation and Logic Extraction to extract the business logic 
from your COOL:2E functions into EXCEXTFUN or EXCINTFUN. This is a feature 
that was added to COOL:2E Release 7.0 of the product. Once extracted it can 
be used by other web development tools - such as COOL:Plex Websydian, or 
LANSA for the Web. An important thing to note is that the LANSA for the Web 
option has been mis-represented as an easy path to take your COOL:2E 
applications to the web as there is still significant work required to 
re-build the web interface. In this scenario I would much prefer to work 
with COOL:Plex due to its greater flexibility in the end product.

4. Re-Design you 5250 applications to be much flatter - such that you have 
one controlling program that navigates to the various screens in the 
application. This would then allow you to implement command keys to flip 
between them. I have used to this approach on my COOL:2E Web Option demo 
site (still not open to the general public until after the product goes GA) 
to simulate a simple shopping mall on the web with Product Categories, 
Product Sub-Categories, Products, Shopping Cart and Checkout. As with most 
shopping malls on the web you can flip between the various screens using 
buttons on the web pages - for my application it is implemented as a tab 
bar.

5. Use eRPG techniques to build your applications such that the all current 
HTML options are available. This requires considerable thought and change 
in the way that you currently build your business applications but has the 
advantage of delivering the best solution.

Whatever solution you choose will be based on the constraints imposed upon 
you by your business. We are working with one business to get their 
applications on the web and they have severe time constraints imposed upon 
them and the first solution is the best for them. Others may have all the 
time in the world and unlimited financial resources - so the last solution 
may fit them best.

Regards,

Darryl MILLINGTON
HawkBridge Pty Ltd (Australia)
http://www.HawkBridge.com
AS/400 Products and Services

+61 3 9598 5829 Home Office
+61 3 9598 8570 Home
+61 3 9502 0458 Fax (Business Hours Only)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web400-admin@midrange.com [<mailto:web400-admin@midrange.com] On
>
> Behalf Of Buck Calabro
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:26 AM
> To: web400@midrange.com
> Subject: [WEB400] Web UI design vs 5250 UI design
>
> We're looking to "webify" our Synon applications, and are finding that 
all
> the options that leave the 5250 data entry sequence as-is leave
> something to
> be desired. In other words, having to walk through 7 "screens"
> is just not > "GUI-ish." It looks screen scraped, even though it might be 
RPG-CGI,
> WebFaced or e-deployed. The tech-savvy people we show this to all groan
> when they see it.
>
> More fashionable (word chosen with care) is the shopping cart, a la
> amazon.com, or a single panel, with everything on it, a la innumerable 
web
> registration pages. Please remember that *I* do not think > there's 
anything
> wrong with the traditional multi-screen data entry. The problem
> is that our
> prospective customers now want sizzle with their steak; they want what's
> fashionable. And right now, stateless panels are The Thing.
>
> Buck