Thanks for the laugh!! It is certainly needed throughout this extremely frustrating experience.
To make matters worse, I just found out that the reason they are being adamant is because the person with the working examples wants to take the prototype from this project and use it for another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we're supposed to meet the client's needs...? Still in my eyes, why would they choose CGI?! At this point I have not been trying to convince them of JSP, just that CGI is not the way to go. And it is like talking to a wall. Since there is a good chance of me staying on the project long after the other team members are gone, I'm thinking I may have to approach the client with the dilemma, but I'd hate to seem unprofessional. This is definitely getting ugly and sadly enough I may have to just remove my self from the situation although I would obviously rather not have to. Well, I extremely appreciate everyone's detailed responses. It's nice to know that I'm not alone on this and that there are so many knowledgeable people out there willing to help out. Thanks again. Denise -----Original Message----- From: Will Hartung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:43 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: [OT]JSP defense - can you point me in the right direction > From: "Denise Mangano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:49 AM > Subject: RE: [OT]JSP defense - can you point me in the right direction > More importantly, they are not 'validating' their choice of CGI, they > are just opting for the quickest and easiest solution. And the only > reason why > they suggested it in the first place is because one member mentioned already > having some working examples of forms using CGI, but this member is working > on the DB... not the site. Honestly if they could defend their > decision as > well as the list defends NOT using CGI, then there would be cause for > discussion. If this project wasn't a great opportunity for me, I wouldn't > otherwise want to be involved with this team. So I stick to my original > plan of being 'anti-CGI' and will explore the number of solutions that > the list has provided and present them with all the "evidence" and > hopefully open their eyes :) They're suffering from myopia. What they see is not CGI. What they see is "Sam is half way done, so we want to continue on this path". The problem, of course, is simply that Sam is not half way done. He's not even close. He has a model built from popsicle sticks and rubber cement. Unfortuneately, the Powers That Be cannot discern this model from the final application. So, they take this popsicle stick model to the gorge, see that it goes half way across and say "That looks like a bridge to us, let's finish this one!". All fine and dandy until the trucks come to cross or the gorge floods. They need to be convinced that they have a rough prototype, a stab at proving some basic technologies, or perhaps work flow. A nice sketch. Did it ever occur to them that these CGIs were used as a tool to simply validate the schema the DB folks were using? The tenet "Write it once, throw it away and write again" comes to play here. Convince them that there are wonderful lessons to be learned from this effort, but it should not be a foundation for the final application. Once they're convinced that they have gained all they can from the system they think they have, then they'll be much more likely to be willing to toss it out and start fresh. Regards, Will Hartung ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
