[snip]
> >The problem with all of the above is that it takes a VERY VERY complex >analysis, planning, deployment, and long term environmental support >infrastructure that most companies just don't have. So while J2EE all >sounds great on paper, implementation of any reasonable J2EE system actually >can create MORE man hours of "work" than a more straightforward procedural >style implementation. It a matter of where you want to put the "work", on >the development side or on the implementation/support side. > >People forget or (don't want to remember?) that perl can utilize OOP, Design >Patterns, and just good old polymorphism in a more straight forward >"procedural" style implementation. It's especially important to think in >these way in those "spots" you can guess they are going to "scope creep" on >you down the road. [snip]. >People can archetect the most elegant system in the world but if you don't >have the people to make it all "happen", then you have nothing after months >and months of development work. > >-Zac > Zac is absolutely 100% right. That was one heck of the answer. This will be very useful when I talk to the management. I hope zac doesn't mind if I quote his e-mail in the meeting ;-). Ganesan. > >> >> My suggestions are: >> >> >> >> 1. Get rid of screen driver codes from the existing C programs >> >> 2. Use "Inline C" in the mod_perl programs and run it through >apache >> >>webserver as a web page. >> >> >> >>But, some of my colleagues are suggesting to write a Java/VC++ >> >>Interface for the GUI. >
