Once the UniObjects connection pooling is in, the problem goes away. It sounds like: (1) IBM sees a licensing problem, (2) IBM offers a stopgap via RedBack, (3) IBM offers a proper solution as soon as is feasible... Granted, I can be objective, since all my situations are compliant under the current rules.
I've been listening to the frustrations expressed on this topic but I also see the UniObjects pooling as a reasonable answer for those of us who aren't planning on adding Redback to our process.
- Chuck "It sounds like it's almost solved" Barouch
Leroy, the issue with the answer being Redback is that using Redback imposes too much of the shape of the solution to any given problem.
Take Craig's example. Disparate systems in a large organisation hooked together via MQ Series. That organisation can't rewrite its web application architecture around redback just so some data can be hooked out of a U2 database.
It is great that IBM sells what many people seem to consider top-notch technology for building web applications, but I'm fairly sure that they will get into trouble if they are seen to be using their licensing agreements to force people to buy that technology in preference to other competitive ones.
Cheers,
Ken ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
