I think my original answer is still valid unfortunately. Connecting to
legacy systems is not a strength of CF. I dont think anyone has ever
connected CF to an AS/400 system ;-)
However, I think the cost is is even more at the forefront with your
clarification. If I was approached by a company with a large investment in
legacy systems, and needed a distributed internet app. I would approach it
differently. The weak point in their approach I think is that it apparently
requires multiple network connections to stay rock solid to work at all.
This is not realistic, unless they want to spend a lot of money for
redundancy.
I think I would try and get the data to a real database that CF (or anything
else) can work with first. This may require a custom developed bridge be
developed, but once the system for synchronizing the data is up and running,
it would be much easier and cheaper to present the data on the web, with
technologies that are meant to work on the web, if that makes sense. Unless
all of the agents in the field have fast computers with fast internet links,
they are going to hate work with a java app I'd think. Java isn't known for
it's speed.
The whole concept of extending legacy systems just rubs me the wrong way
anyway. They need to bite the bullet and get modern, or expect to pay a ton
of money to keep extending it.
hth
jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher P. Maher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Extending legacy systems through Java
> Jon,
>
> Perhaps I was not clear in my explanation.
>
> My competitors did not write a java program that does the same thing my
> application does. They are using a 3rd party java program to extend their
> legacy system (in one case an AS/400 and the other VB) to the Internet.
>
> What they have done is take an application written for a local network and
> run it through a java program so it can run on the Internet. Like a
> Citrix/WinFrame approach and a little like running pcAnywhere.
>
> Sorry if I was not clear. Perhaps you would like to take another stab at
> answering my question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:23 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Extending legacy systems through Java
> >
> >
> > This is real simple. Coldfusion's strength is not it's power,
> > even though it
> > powerful, but it's speed and ease of development.
> > A good java programmer can whip out a networked java app in the
> > same time we
> > can whip together the same app in CF, but good java programmers get paid
a
> > lot more too.
> > That should enable you to undercut their prices by quite a bit.
Especially
> > when comparing to a custom java application.
> >
> > Quite simply, the _potential_ power of a custom java application is far
> > greater than anything CF can deliver.
> > Your competitors are not cheating, they are leveraging more powerful
> > technoligies. Time to learn to us a bigger gun if you hope to win on the
> > same battlefield.
> >
> > I am really surprised about the lack of buzz for Neo among CF
developers,
> > which will help level the battlefield somewhat and IIRC it is slated for
> > release later this year.
> >
> > jon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christopher P. Maher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:52 PM
> > Subject: Extending legacy systems through Java
> >
> >
> > > As CF developers we often run into competing technologies and find
> > ourselves
> > > in need of reasons why a CF system is at least as good if not better.
> > There
> > > have been lots of threads here and on CF-Talk comparing CF to other
web
> > > development technologies. Rather than ASP or PHP, I have concerns
about
> > > other technologies.
> > >
> > > I have recently run into companies that are putting legacy
> > applications on
> > > the web through Java clients. This is a real competitive
> > concern for me as
> > > most companies in my target market (insurance) already have back end
> > > systems. If they can easily put these applications on the Internet for
> > their
> > > agents, then it makes what I do (a "real" HTML output system built
with
> > CF)
> > > potentially irrelevant.
> > >
> > > The two particular products I know about are:
> > >
> > > Tarantella http://www.tarantella.com
> > > J Walk Java Client by SEAGULL http://www.seagullsw.com/
> > >
> > > The SUN website has an article about extending legacy systems in this
> > manner
> > > which is - obviously - rather positive.
> > > http://java.sun.com/features/1999/08/unshackled1.html
> > >
> > > Apart from feeling like my competitors are "cheating" by using such
> > > approaches, I would love to have a better understanding of these
> > approaches
> > > and some ammunition for why they are not as good of a solution as a CF
> > > system.
> > >
> > > The particular context for these systems is use by the company's
agents.
> > So
> > > the fact that the general public will never download the
> > necessary plugin
> > > isn't a good argument.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any input.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > Christopher P. Maher
> > > Maher Associates, Inc.
> > > Actuarial and Computer Consulting
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.maherassociates.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
