Fred, How would you like to still create your app in exactly the same way you can today, but also be able to do all of the versioning and merging stuff that Axton just posted about?
-----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grooms, Frederick W Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Overlay and Applications I have to disagree... The fact that everything is stored in the database is one of the biggest advantages to the Action Request System. I don't know why I would want to go from my 4GL system back to 3GL scripting. I have yet to find anything worthwhile that is impossible to implement in AR System. I can create specialized tracking systems for my company in less time and with less problems than someone in a 3GL setup. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Baker Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Overlay and Applications Jose, I'm pleased you agree and don't. Let me tackle the don't: I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be a user interface/admin tool, and there is no reason why that can't remain. However, the current approach of trying to put workflow into a database isn't working because functionality that was available in the 1970s (according to the Wiki page, but 1990 is a more reasonble guess) proves difficult/impossible to implement in AR System. Storing as a script will allow merges in seconds, side by side easy to read diff between two sets of workflow, multiple branches and branches on branches, access over ssh, a pretty web interface and integration to bug tracking systems (JIRA), test driven development - the list goes on. All of which is available for free or with little effort if workflow is stored as scripts, not stored into a database table. The problem with the current model touches so many areas of AR System: When Mid Tier isn't required to store workflow in a memory cache and can simply point the browser at scripts, the "pre-cache" functionality will largely disappear and the product will become vastly less memory hungry and much quicker. Perhaps I should ask, can anyone think of a disadvantage with taking workflow from the schema and into scripts? John ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
