Re: Windows vs i5/OS as a platform

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: albartell
>
> 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.

You have to touch it twice anyway in the green screen, sometimes three
times.  You have to add it to the database, then add it to your display
file, then add it to your business logic.

I'm sorry, but complaining about adding literally THREE LINES to your Java
code (the definition of the field in the data bean, and the conversion code
in the servlet) just seems like nitpicking to me.


> 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).

This is the entire code needed to add a field using completely handcoded
Java (it's even easier with EGL):

Add THIS to the bean (makes the field available to the JSP):

    String myNewField;

Add THIS to the data structure definition (converts between EBCDIC character
data and a Java String):

    new AS400Text(30),

And then finally add THIS to the logic (moves the converted field from the
data structure to the bean):

    bean.myNewField = convertedData[15];

Yes, I hard-coded the field type and size and the ordinal position of the
field in the data structure but technically, all of this code could be
generated from an externally-described data structure.  Add one more line to
get the field back to the program for an input-capable field.


> Most of the time people
> simply aren't using Javascript as much as the highest end sites out there
> (obviously AJAX is catching on).

Simply loading a dropdown and then marking the selected value takes more
code than what I outlined above, unless you're generating the HTML for the
combobox in your CGI program, one little scrap at a time.

And Ajax is quite a bit more difficult than a simple combo box.


> > 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.

No, I agree!  Simply converting data structures to Java beans is as simple
as you can get.  JavaScript is a pain in the rear (and it's much harder to
debug).

Joe