Re: Pete's web5250 was->Re: Business Developers was ->Re: IBM Gives RPG Devotees Their Own Café

From: Niels Liisberg
JavaFX is actually another good argument for making the
5250 javascript proxy - JavaFX will just swallow the JSON
stream I am talking about....

Now I'm confused. Are we still talking about a 5250 interface? Accessing green-screen applications from a browser?

The earlier appeal of a JavaScript client seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. Getting back to basics, the appeal of a JavaScript client was to streamline I/O, and expose a green-screen interface that could be referenced from other Web applications running concurrently in the browser.

One problem with web5250 was that a 500 byte 5250 data stream was transformed into a 23K HTML data stream. Actually 23K was the compressed version. The actual amount of HTML generated by the servlet was probably double that. We don't need another HATS. We don't need another Webfacing. We need something more efficient.

The idea of a JavaScript client held two appeals to me. First, you could get back to dealing with a data stream that was more like 5250, and less like HTML, and thereby improve I/O performance. Second, a JavaScript client could expose an interface in the browser that could could be referenced from other frames. Say you wanted to automate the 5250 sign-on from an application running in a different frame. That would be pretty strait forward, using JavaScript.

Now it sounds like you're talking about Java code running in a JVM, and JavaScript running in the browser, and it seems to me that the interface is getting more unwieldy.

Nathan.