Then there is the answer...with odbc, the java frontend seems totally
unnecessary.
jon
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:28 AM
Subject: RE: Extending legacy systems through Java
> "I dont think anyone has ever
> connected CF to an AS/400 system ;-)"
>
> They have, you know - the IBM Client Access app allows you to set up ODBC
> drivers for remote AS/400 systems which you can call from CF just like any
> other ODBC driver. YOu can use stored procedures and everything.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 25 May 2001 09:08
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Extending legacy systems through Java
>
>
> 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
