CC Did you ever want to take something back after you have done it?
What I would give to recall the message that started this whole thing. So hard to explain. Offline to you would have had more meaning. Tom Moulder Chris Mason said (to Tom Moulder) > > If the proposed "z/OS System Explorer" is what I think it is - There's nothing "proposed" about it. The product exists already. It is possible that something with a similar name exists elsewhere, but Tom and I were referring to a BMC product. I know a little about it since it was my idea and my team that wrote it. > judging from the use of the Microsoft "Explorer" word - it approaches the file handling > which may be compared to what the *TSO extension* ISPF does. > In other words, what "z/OS System Explorer" replaces is ISPF. Yes and no. It is by design very similar in function. But "replace" implies more than was perhaps intended. It does not attempt to replace user or vendor written ISPF application functionality. It is web server based rather than ISPF dialog manager based, so while there is (or could be) functional equivalence, it isn't really a direct replacement. It provides a more sophisticated (and familiar) point and click GUI interface for the main functions people typically use ISPF and SDSF for. The explorer GUI is easier for less expert people to use than ISPF. It runs as a JAVA app on the user's workstation and behaves exactly as you would expect a Windows or UNIX desktop application to work. And if you're familiar with the Windows File Manager, then you already know what it looks like and how to use it. > "z/OS System Explorer" exploits some lower level environment in the client platform > which may be equated to 3270 data stream analysis and construction in the server > platform in the case of ISPF sitting on top of TSO. Well this particular z/OS explorer is contains an embedded Apache web server. You point your favorite web browser at the URL and away it goes. All of the client UI interaction flows over HTTP. > In other words it's rather tricky to draw parallels even if the end-user > is performing much the same functions with the proposed "z/OS System > Explorer" as with ISPF. Yes. It is functionally similar and probably easier for most people, but not the same thing. No flames please, I know there are ISPF experts out there, I may even qualify for that term myself :-) We were trying to address the question of what do you do when your new generation of users reel back in horror when you ask them to logon to TSO? Even the ISPF cognoscenti would probably agree that newbies find it a rather user-vicious environment compared to what they are used to. > I'm not sure "remov(ing) the need for VTAM in the middle of things" is > much > of a key distinction to mention compared to all the other necessary > changes. True. OTOH it would have been absurdly difficult to accomplish the same thing using VTAM. Possible certainly, but not worth the effort. CC No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 6/15/2007 11:31 AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
