Concerning SQL server, yes, many times it will start out that they will use tables on DB2, but then they realize that their tools don't work as seamlessly with DB2 as they do with MSSQL. And the creep of MSSQL starts and before you know it there is a nightly push of table data from one DB to another.
Ah, not really true. As of V6R1 the database stuff is entirely integrated to Visual Studio. The drivers work all the way back to V5R1.
See for yourself. Come to the dark side :-)
Paranoia can destroy ya ......
You can also use and take advantage of CGIDEV2/IWS and I imagine RPG-XML services from ASP.Net so really all the service communications can be done via ASP.Net or by calling into the i.
Agreed. But why not just keep all that processing on IBM i with RPG and NOT have to double many of the things I originally mentioned.
Would you agree that having .NET (and corresponding servers) AND RPG (and corresponding servers) is more complex than just having one or the other? That is the point I am trying to make - but a lot of people just dismiss that as "the cost of doing business" and > >don't give it ample consideration.
Deploying an IIS server is a little more complex, but it's also not rocket science. You can teach anyone to deploy an app on IIS in 60 minutes or less :-)
In fact I can write a new web service that talks to the iSeries in about 20 minutes or less as well. Faster if I use my COMMON class examples :-)
Keeping the iSeries one layer back from the web can also be seen as a good thing. Using IIS or for that matter another iSeries or Linux server keeps the iSeries insulated and one layer back from the web.
Is that a good approach ? Depends on who you talk to. I actually like keeping the iSeries one layer back whenever possible.
Of course that would all be entirely relative. Sure I could have 30 VMWare instances to facilitate the same processing power of a larger IBM i, but why would I want to? In my mind there is a blatant scaling issue when you can't scale by adding processing power to a single OS instance and instead need to spread it across many OSes. Smells like that platform wasn't ever really meant for what it was built for and it is now just a hyped band-aid process called VMWare. FWIW, you don't create an IBM i LPAR for the same reasons you create a Windows VMWare, so I think your comparison is a bit unbalanced.
Why isn't the LPAR reasoning the same ? Seems that way to me. I want an isolated environment for whatever reason. In fact an LPAR is usually just a big disk image just like a Vmware image that shares system resources. And isn't it called virtualization ? :-)
Please clarify......
Have you ever used Vmware in a real production environment ?
One server with several Vmware instances can do more than that server could with a single OS instance. IE (LPAR) :-)
We have 10 VMware Server instances on a single Intel piece of hardware and it does much more than 10 individual servers could accomplish standalone.
You probably need to get familiar with the technology and use it in production before bashing :-)
VMware is awesome and anyone who tells you different just hasn't used or implemented it properly.
On a personal level I recently virtualized my 6 year old T40 to a laptop that is 10 times faster than the T40 was. That's productivity gain !!
By disadvocating (Is that a word :-) ) Windows you're really setting people up to try and live in a bubble that no longer exists, which is the iSeries all by itself.
So are you saying you can't do an entire, and modern looking, business application on IBM i using only RPG and CGI? Note I haven't started talking about email servers and the like (which IBM i is terrible at btw, unfortunately).
Sure you can if that's where you only skillset lies and you desire an all iSeries approach and you're not comfortable with other platforms.
Bottom line is it comes down to comfort factor.
I am also a staunch i-only advocate when appropriate, but you seem to be advocating i-and-only-I which is pretty one-sided.
Open your mind young grasshopper :-)
I guess in the end what I disagree with is that many think you NEED Microsoft on the front end to produce nice looking modern applications in a timely manner for IBM i/RPG shops, and that simply isn't true.
We agree on this point as well. We have done production apps using CGIDEV along with Ajax, JSP and ASP.Net. They all work quite well and some work on all iSeries and some do not.
Depends on what the customer needs or wants.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
RJS Software Systems Inc.
Where Information Meets Innovation
Document Management, Workflow, Report Delivery, Forms and Business Intelligence
Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site:
http://www.rjssoftware.com
Tel: (952) 736-5800
Fax: (952) 736-5801
Toll Free: (888) RJSSOFT
------------------------------
message: 2
date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 08:10:44 -0500
from: Aaron Bartell <aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: [WEB400] Microsoft .NET frontending IBM i
I thought I would change the subject of the email since we have split from OT.
Concerning SQL server, yes, many times it will start out that they will use tables on DB2, but then they realize that their tools don't work as seamlessly with DB2 as they do with MSSQL. And the creep of MSSQL starts and before you know it there is a nightly push of table data from one DB to another.
In fact IBM has always proposed a 2 iSeries scenario when going to the
web
I would guess that is from the Websphere App Server folks - yes, I could see why they would do two servers - they are from the same line of thinking as the Microsoft camp. You only need two servers if your High Availability requirements mandate it. Otherwise IBM is just looking to get more money in their pocket.
You can also use Apache to host .Net just as easily as PHP, JSP, etc.
Yes, but not on IBMi unfortunately, unless you want to go the route of Mono - but I don't know if that is a place I want to go.
You can also use and take advantage of CGIDEV2/IWS and I imagine RPG-XML services from ASP.Net so really all the service communications can be done via ASP.Net or by calling into the i.
Agreed. But why not just keep all that processing on IBM i with RPG and NOT have to double many of the things I originally mentioned.
Would you agree that having .NET (and corresponding servers) AND RPG (and corresponding servers) is more complex than just having one or the other? That is the point I am trying to make - but a lot of people just dismiss that as "the cost of doing business" and don't give it ample consideration.
ASP.Net scales probably just as well as the other methods you guys
have been throwing about. However I haven't done any millisecond
thread clocking :-)
Of course that would all be entirely relative. Sure I could have 30 VMWare instances to facilitate the same processing power of a larger IBM i, but why would I want to? In my mind there is a blatant scaling issue when you can't scale by adding processing power to a single OS instance and instead need to spread it across many OSes. Smells like that platform wasn't ever really meant for what it was built for and it is now just a hyped band-aid process called VMWare. FWIW, you don't create an IBM i LPAR for the same reasons you create a Windows VMWare, so I think your comparison is a bit unbalanced.
By disadvocating (Is that a word :-) ) Windows you're really setting people up to try and live in a bubble that no longer exists, which is the iSeries all by itself.
So are you saying you can't do an entire, and modern looking, business application on IBM i using only RPG and CGI? Note I haven't started talking about email servers and the like (which IBM i is terrible at btw, unfortunately).
Interesting enough EXTJS works just as well and simply with RPG, PHP, JSP and ASP.Net. Keep evangelizing that because EXTJS is a cool framework.
Absolutely true! (glad we agree on something) What's even better is that in many cases you can go down to a more raw form of ASP.NET/PHP/JSP and not include all the extra layers and still get excellent looking code that is easy enough to maintain. For example, this program could have been written in any *single* server side language just as easy:
http://red.rpg-xml.com/oru11/dspf/custmaint.html
I guess in the end what I disagree with is that many think you NEED Microsoft on the front end to produce nice looking modern applications in a timely manner for IBM i/RPG shops, and that simply isn't true.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
http://mowyourlawn.com/blog/
midrange.com
