Re: [WEB400] RE: Opinions Wanted

[Tom Jedrzejewicz <tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx>]

The IBM Roadmap has a HUGE jump between traditional and WebSphere.  It
seems to me that CGIDEV2 is the natural in-between step for many
shops. Packaging CGIDEV2 as a part of the ADTS licensed program and
support it through standard PTF and support processes they would go a
long way.

Part of the problem is that shows get to the point of looking to get
on the web, and Websphere is so daunting, in cost and in complexity. 
For small shops this is magnified.  Contrasted with .NET - the server
infrastructure can be setup and maintained by the existing network
staff and the app dev processes are in the reach of a small shop.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:57:48 -0600, Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First, they have to fix the IDE or nobody is going to continue to build new
> apps for the 400.

I second this completely.  If you look at VS.NET, not only does the
IDE/editor understand the language, it knows the class libraries and
such, so when a class is invoked it is straight-forward to get it
invoked properly.  Further, the coding, building and debugging is all
in the same place.

I suspect that the Eclipse / WDSCi is close.

> Second, they need to add in the capability to generate starter-code
> applications. I was working on this feature for CodeStudio but when I
> decided nobody in the 400 market spends money on 3rd-party IDE's I stopped
> that effort.

I think IBM should supply the starter applications, much as Giovanni
and Mel have with CGIDEV2.  It's not as if they don't exist already.

> Third, they have to realize that we just want it to work easily, quickly and
> without the typical 50 additional "you just need to do this" steps.

HUZZAH!

Again, contrast with .NET.  My IIS/SQL Server web server was up and
running in a day.  The IDE includes a mini-version of the server, so
the app dev on the developer PC works out of the box.  It is easy.

-- 
Tom Jedrzejewicz
tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx