Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Thanks to everyone for all the great feedback! I think I have a much better understanding of the available options. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Peters Bluefinity Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:12 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products And from Bluefinity we certainly welcome Dan's endorsement to technology that enhances the use of U2 and makes for happy, long term users as this is great for everyone. There are certainly a lot of happy mv.NET customers in that category. Regards David Peters, Sales Manager at Bluefinity -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath Sent: 29 May 2013 15:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump, there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does U2-only work with .NET, but why limit your scope to U2-only people? The non-end-user developers that I know who use mv.NET aren't interested in limiting themselves to one platform anymore. It doesn't make sense to not have access to that pool of talent just because you want to use a free tool. And no, the DBMS vendors shouldn't feel threatened by this - we're enhancing applications for everyone, not the competition. It's the end-users that win here as well as their up-line channel. So Rocket Software and Tiger Logic and Ladybridge and everyone else should be encouraging their developer channel to use mv.NET rather than somehow feeling threatened by it. (More than I expected to write on that one, sorry.) T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Hi Perry, I'm a bit late to the party, but we (FusionWare) have a Managed Provider (ADO.NET) that works with U2 and is portable to other MultiValue platforms. If you're looking at options, you might as well have them all. Here are some YouTube playlists that show how our Managed Provider works: http://www.youtube.com/user/fusionwareInt/videos?flow=gridview=1 We've been around for a long time, having released an ODBC driver for MultiValue back in 1992. We have customers who still use both the ODBC, OLEDB, JDBC, and our Managed Provider and have seen some very innovative extensions of MultiValue with 3rd party apps over the years. Thank you, Robert Houben Chief Technology Officer FusionWare Integration Corp. An IBM Advanced Business Partner p: 604-777-4254 x158 f: 604-608-5544 http://www.fwic.net http://twitter.com/fusionwareint https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthouben -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:34 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks to everyone for all the great feedback! I think I have a much better understanding of the available options. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Peters Bluefinity Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:12 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products And from Bluefinity we certainly welcome Dan's endorsement to technology that enhances the use of U2 and makes for happy, long term users as this is great for everyone. There are certainly a lot of happy mv.NET customers in that category. Regards David Peters, Sales Manager at Bluefinity -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath Sent: 29 May 2013 15:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump, there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does U2-only work
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Hello Robert. Thanks for the info. I will definitely be having a look at the videos. BTW... what is your licensing model? Thanks. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Robert Houben Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:30 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Hi Perry, I'm a bit late to the party, but we (FusionWare) have a Managed Provider (ADO.NET) that works with U2 and is portable to other MultiValue platforms. If you're looking at options, you might as well have them all. Here are some YouTube playlists that show how our Managed Provider works: http://www.youtube.com/user/fusionwareInt/videos?flow=gridview=1 We've been around for a long time, having released an ODBC driver for MultiValue back in 1992. We have customers who still use both the ODBC, OLEDB, JDBC, and our Managed Provider and have seen some very innovative extensions of MultiValue with 3rd party apps over the years. Thank you, Robert Houben Chief Technology Officer FusionWare Integration Corp. An IBM Advanced Business Partner p: 604-777-4254 x158 f: 604-608-5544 http://www.fwic.net http://twitter.com/fusionwareint https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthouben -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:34 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks to everyone for all the great feedback! I think I have a much better understanding of the available options. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Peters Bluefinity Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:12 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products And from Bluefinity we certainly welcome Dan's endorsement to technology that enhances the use of U2 and makes for happy, long term users as this is great for everyone. There are certainly a lot of happy mv.NET customers in that category. Regards David Peters, Sales Manager at Bluefinity -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath Sent: 29 May 2013 15:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Hi Perry, We license a server component plus concurrent connections, but we have a starter bundle that includes everything you need including 2 connections. The starter bundle is very competitively priced, and we have customers ranging from small to fortune 500 with workloads ranging from small to huge. Thank you, Robert -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:35 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Hello Robert. Thanks for the info. I will definitely be having a look at the videos. BTW... what is your licensing model? Thanks. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Robert Houben Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:30 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Hi Perry, I'm a bit late to the party, but we (FusionWare) have a Managed Provider (ADO.NET) that works with U2 and is portable to other MultiValue platforms. If you're looking at options, you might as well have them all. Here are some YouTube playlists that show how our Managed Provider works: http://www.youtube.com/user/fusionwareInt/videos?flow=gridview=1 We've been around for a long time, having released an ODBC driver for MultiValue back in 1992. We have customers who still use both the ODBC, OLEDB, JDBC, and our Managed Provider and have seen some very innovative extensions of MultiValue with 3rd party apps over the years. Thank you, Robert Houben Chief Technology Officer FusionWare Integration Corp. An IBM Advanced Business Partner p: 604-777-4254 x158 f: 604-608-5544 http://www.fwic.net http://twitter.com/fusionwareint https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthouben -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:34 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks to everyone for all the great feedback! I think I have a much better understanding of the available options. Perry -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Peters Bluefinity Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:12 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products And from Bluefinity we certainly welcome Dan's endorsement to technology that enhances the use of U2 and makes for happy, long term users as this is great for everyone. There are certainly a lot of happy mv.NET customers in that category. Regards David Peters, Sales Manager at Bluefinity -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath Sent: 29 May 2013 15:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump, there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does U2-only work with .NET, but why limit your scope to U2-only people? The non-end-user developers that I know who use mv.NET aren't interested in limiting themselves to one platform anymore. It doesn't make sense to not have access to that pool of talent just because you want to use a free tool. And no, the DBMS vendors shouldn't feel threatened by this - we're enhancing applications for everyone, not the competition. It's the end-users that win here as well as their up-line channel. So Rocket Software and Tiger Logic and Ladybridge and everyone else should be encouraging their developer channel to use mv.NET rather than somehow feeling threatened by it. (More than I expected to write on that one, sorry.) T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
And from Bluefinity we certainly welcome Dan's endorsement to technology that enhances the use of U2 and makes for happy, long term users as this is great for everyone. There are certainly a lot of happy mv.NET customers in that category. Regards David Peters, Sales Manager at Bluefinity -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath Sent: 29 May 2013 15:27 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end. Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump, there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does U2-only work with .NET, but why limit your scope to U2-only people? The non-end-user developers that I know who use mv.NET aren't interested in limiting themselves to one platform anymore. It doesn't make sense to not have access to that pool of talent just because you want to use a free tool. And no, the DBMS vendors shouldn't feel threatened by this - we're enhancing applications for everyone, not the competition. It's the end-users that win here as well as their up-line channel. So Rocket Software and Tiger Logic and Ladybridge and everyone else should be encouraging their developer channel to use mv.NET rather than somehow feeling threatened by it. (More than I expected to write on that one, sorry.) T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
HI, Just for enlarge the question. On the U2 side, we choose to develop and expose web-services ; RESTful format, From now, our .Net, j-script, java, androïd, ...Thrid-party app call htpp to request U2. Then we work as a team of U2 devs and third-party devs or designer ... the best on each sides. My two pence. Manu -Message d'origine- De : u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] De la part de Perry Taylor Envoyé : mardi 28 mai 2013 01:45 À : U2-Users List Objet : [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third-party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? Thanks. Perry Taylor Senior MV Architect ZirMed 888 West Market Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 www.zirmed.comhttp://www.zirmed.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. ZirMed, Inc. has strict policies regarding the content of e-mail communications, specifically Protected Health Information, any communications containing such material will be returned to the originating party with such advisement noted. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Uniobjects.Net is the base requirement. MV.NET builds on this and gives you a heap more (tho infact you can use it without uniobjects.net) So it depends if you want simple connectivity to the DB to do commands and subroutine calls, for which uniobject.net would suffice, or if you want any of the other fancy stuff on top that MV.NET will give you ... -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: 28 May 2013 00:45 To: U2-Users List Subject: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third-party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? Thanks. Perry Taylor Senior MV Architect ZirMed 888 West Market Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 www.zirmed.comhttp://www.zirmed.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. ZirMed, Inc. has strict policies regarding the content of e-mail communications, specifically Protected Health Information, any communications containing such material will be returned to the originating party with such advisement noted. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
I've used the UO.NET library with no issues with both ASP.NET web sites and Windows forms applications for years now... But the devil in the details and those may impact which tool is better Do the 3rd party tools offer some feature you foresee as a requirement that UO.NET does not provide? For example, is your primary goal to interface U2 subroutines? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Perry Taylor perry.tay...@zirmed.comwrote: I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third-party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? Thanks. Perry Taylor Senior MV Architect ZirMed 888 West Market Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 www.zirmed.comhttp://www.zirmed.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. ZirMed, Inc. has strict policies regarding the content of e-mail communications, specifically Protected Health Information, any communications containing such material will be returned to the originating party with such advisement noted. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
UO.NET has been superseded by U2 Toolkit for .NET (or more accurately, subsumed by it), so you really should be looking at that for .NET development. http://u2.rocketsoftware.com/products/u2-toolkit-for-.net/at-a-glance It has a free component, which includes all of your UO.NET functionality, an ADO.NET and more. It also optionally has a paid portion that give you visual studio add-ins, meaning you can treat U2 like any other DB with server resource views and drag-n-drop coding. Regards, Dan McGrath Managing Director, U2 Servers Lab Rocket Software -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 5:45 PM To: U2-Users List Subject: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third-party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? Thanks. Perry Taylor Senior MV Architect ZirMed 888 West Market Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 www.zirmed.comhttp://www.zirmed.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. ZirMed, Inc. has strict policies regarding the content of e-mail communications, specifically Protected Health Information, any communications containing such material will be returned to the originating party with such advisement noted. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
I'll preface by saying I catch some heat when I advocate some products, because I happen to sell them too. People confuse the cause and effect there. I sell products because I use them - I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I was using them first as a choice, having considered other options just like fellow colleagues, and then I decided that I liked them so much that I would sell them too. When I sell a product like mv.NET, I get feedback from my clients. I pass that back to the up-line developer, we get product changes, and we all win. That's my motivation - to ensure that the products I like stay good. Some people here know that when I decide that I can't rely on a product anymore, I stop advocating it. And with that said, I've been using mv.NET happily for about 8 years now. As Symeon says, mv.NET is a super-set of the free DBMS tools. Comparing them is like comparing water to coffee, apples to apple pie, or radio to TV. You can survive on the former but you'll get much more from the latter. The difference with the software, again echoing Symeon, is that mv.NET doesn't need UO.NET or any of its functionality - mv.NET can use telnet or SSH or UO as the basic transport too. IBM saw the value-add of mv.NET compared to UO.NET, and purchased a version of the source to re-brand and sell to U2 sites. I don't think they continued that - their version couldn't keep up with mv.NET itself. The point here is to emphasize the conclusions of the evaluation of their own product. While this doesn't apply to most U2 developers, one of the big advantages of mv.NET is that works for all MV platforms. For third-party developers this is huge because it means reporting tools, communications interfaces, and entire applications can be portable across a wider variety of DBMS products. YMMV Please feel free to contact me for more info. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno From: Symeon Breen Uniobjects.Net is the base requirement. MV.NET builds on this and gives you a heap more (tho infact you can use it without uniobjects.net) So it depends if you want simple connectivity to the DB to do commands and subroutine calls, for which uniobject.net would suffice, or if you want any of the other fancy stuff on top that MV.NET will give you ... From: Perry Taylor I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third- party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
You stated below that its transportable. Maybe you could give a few examples of what mv.NET can do for those who don't need the transportable feature. -Original Message- From: Tony Gravagno 3xk547...@sneakemail.com To: u2-users u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 9:47 am Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products I'll preface by saying I catch some heat when I advocate some products, because I happen to sell them too. People confuse the cause and effect there. I sell products because I use them - I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I was using them first as a choice, having considered other options just like fellow colleagues, and then I decided that I liked them so much that I would sell them too. When I sell a product like mv.NET, I get feedback from my clients. I pass that back to the up-line developer, we get product changes, and we all win. That's my motivation - to ensure that the products I like stay good. Some people here know that when I decide that I can't rely on a product anymore, I stop advocating it. And with that said, I've been using mv.NET happily for about 8 years now. As Symeon says, mv.NET is a super-set of the free DBMS tools. Comparing them is like comparing water to coffee, apples to apple pie, or radio to TV. You can survive on the former but you'll get much more from the latter. The difference with the software, again echoing Symeon, is that mv.NET doesn't need UO.NET or any of its functionality - mv.NET can use telnet or SSH or UO as the basic transport too. IBM saw the value-add of mv.NET compared to UO.NET, and purchased a version of the source to re-brand and sell to U2 sites. I don't think they continued that - their version couldn't keep up with mv.NET itself. The point here is to emphasize the conclusions of the evaluation of their own product. While this doesn't apply to most U2 developers, one of the big advantages of mv.NET is that works for all MV platforms. For third-party developers this is huge because it means reporting tools, communications interfaces, and entire applications can be portable across a wider variety of DBMS products. YMMV Please feel free to contact me for more info. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno From: Symeon Breen Uniobjects.Net is the base requirement. MV.NET builds on this and gives you a heap more (tho infact you can use it without uniobjects.net) So it depends if you want simple connectivity to the DB to do commands and subroutine calls, for which uniobject.net would suffice, or if you want any of the other fancy stuff on top that MV.NET will give you ... From: Perry Taylor I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third- party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:46 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products I'll preface by saying I catch some heat when I advocate some products, because I happen to sell them too. People confuse the cause and effect there. I sell products because I use them - I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I was using them first as a choice, having considered other options just like fellow colleagues, and then I decided that I liked them so much that I would sell them too. When I sell a product like mv.NET, I get feedback from my clients. I pass that back to the up-line developer, we get product changes, and we all win. That's my motivation - to ensure that the products I like stay good. Some people here know that when I decide that I can't rely on a product anymore, I stop advocating it. And with that said, I've been using mv.NET happily for about 8 years now. As Symeon says, mv.NET is a super-set of the free DBMS tools. Comparing them is like comparing water to coffee, apples to apple pie, or radio to TV. You can survive on the former but you'll get much more from the latter. The difference with the software, again echoing Symeon, is that mv.NET doesn't need UO.NET or any of its functionality - mv.NET can use telnet or SSH or UO as the basic transport too. IBM saw the value-add of mv.NET compared to UO.NET, and purchased a version of the source to re-brand and sell to U2 sites. I don't think they continued that - their version couldn't keep up with mv.NET itself. The point here is to emphasize the conclusions of the evaluation of their own product. While this doesn't apply to most U2 developers, one of the big advantages of mv.NET is that works for all MV platforms. For third-party developers this is huge because it means reporting tools, communications interfaces, and entire applications can be portable across a wider variety of DBMS products. YMMV Please feel free to contact me for more info. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno From: Symeon Breen Uniobjects.Net is the base requirement. MV.NET builds on this and gives you a heap more (tho infact you can use it without uniobjects.net) So it depends if you want simple connectivity to the DB to do commands and subroutine calls, for which uniobject.net would suffice, or if you want any of the other fancy stuff on top that MV.NET will give you ... From: Perry Taylor I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third- party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
From: Wjhonson You stated below that its transportable. Maybe you could give a few examples of what mv.NET can do for those who don't need the transportable feature. Fair question. I'll provide some examples here but invite anyone with more detailed interest to contact me directly. - mv.NET includes a code generator which creates strongly typed classes from U2 files. You can pass an assembly to someone who has never seen the MVDBMS and they'll see a collection of Customers, with individual Customer objects that only expose what you want them to see. One developer might just get name/address info, another will get read-access to accounting data, and another will get read/write access to contact info. Of course you can create POCO's manually but you don't need to. The generated classes can use your BASIC programs for read/write/select. And because they're partial classes you can intercept/insert/override functionality. - mv.NET includes sophisticated session management to ensure you have processes to respond to inbound requests, and you can manage exactly how that's done for all of your applications in one easy to use interface. - mv.NET includes built-in paging for selections. Most new multi-tier developers will code a Select and populate a list box with the results, and Then realize that this doesn't work well when a million records are in the pipe. But here your code can set a retrieval interval and just pull data in batches, as needed. - mv.NET includes an RPC class which allows the DBMS to trigger client-side events. - It has a built-in XAML generator/editor for Silverlight. - It has built-in web services for those who don't want to roll their own. - Similar to UO.NET it also has a built-in ADO.NET class library, allowing developers more familiar with relational databases to operate on U2 data in a manner that's more convenient for them. Note, this doesn't mean you need to do SQL queries against your MV DBMS - it means it looks relational to them without you needing to do anything on your side. For every one of those and other features, different people will say I can do that on my own. In my experience about 50% of the people who say that about many features might be able to. But the point is that even those folks will wind up writing a lot of wrapper code that's already built into this other product. And they'll need to maintain it. How much is your time worth? Is free software really free when you spend That much time building on features? The decision here is up to the individual. After writing my own connectivity products for years I decided to stop doing the lower-end stuff so that I could focus on higher-end apps and interfaces. YMMV. HTH Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
From: Daniel McGrath Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2 Toolkit for .NET? Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages that are all supposed to save us time. Like everyone else here, I need to use whatever free time I have to hone my skills with the latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real code. I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing applications that are the same across all MV platforms, a platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think hard about exactly how much free costs them, or how adverse they are to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years. And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say must know U2 Toolkit for .NET. If they have a tool that anyone in the MV industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2 developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump, there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does U2-only work with .NET, but why limit your scope to U2-only people? The non-end-user developers that I know who use mv.NET aren't interested in limiting themselves to one platform anymore. It doesn't make sense to not have access to that pool of talent just because you want to use a free tool. And no, the DBMS vendors shouldn't feel threatened by this - we're enhancing applications for everyone, not the competition. It's the end-users that win here as well as their up-line channel. So Rocket Software and Tiger Logic and Ladybridge and everyone else should be encouraging their developer channel to use mv.NET rather than somehow feeling threatened by it. (More than I expected to write on that one, sorry.) T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products
I'm investigating the pros and cons to using UniObjects.Net vs third-party products such as MV.Net, etc. Anyone care to chime in with your experiences? Thanks. Perry Taylor Senior MV Architect ZirMed 888 West Market Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 www.zirmed.comhttp://www.zirmed.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. ZirMed, Inc. has strict policies regarding the content of e-mail communications, specifically Protected Health Information, any communications containing such material will be returned to the originating party with such advisement noted. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
