No it does not, but there are a lot of applications out there that still are Green Screen and there is a tidal wave of market forces/perceptions/consultant recommendations (rightly or wrongly) to move off them.
My point really was that if you already have an application which is U2 reliant whether it be green screen or not, then potentially you have a problem, as I think there are a number of people on this group who seem very hung up on the technology. If you still have a green screen and want to put a GUI/Web interface on it, then do the redevelopment, but look to see if you can layer your application architecture so that the database can be swapped out the database if you need to for whatever reason. The value is in your application not the database. If you have a GUI/Web interface and you a reliant on U2, then you probably should revisit your application architecture so that the DB interface is buried under your application layer. Therefore giving you the ability to move off the database onto another platform as above. The same goes for your front-end, develop your app so that you can have a different or multiple front. Separation of concerns... You can do nothing and wait in the hope that someone else may fix your problem, or you can plan today to give yourself choices...the choice is yours.... Cheers Phil. > -----Original Message----- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen > Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 9:31 a.m. > To: 'U2 Users List' > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > My one thing to say on this is u2 does not = green screen - i have not written > a green screen app for many many years - but i still use u2 and other DB's > extensively. > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of phil walker > Sent: 01 February 2011 19:34 > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > > > This is starting to go off on a tangent. But we seem to have this discussion on > a regular basis. > > The way I see it is this: > > As an end-user of an application you should not or do not care what backend > system is used. So after application capability, a match with the existing > environment or cost of ownership is going to be the driving force behind > your decision. > > As a developer of the application in the modern world you are going to stay > with what you know. Unfortunately, if you stay on Green Screen you are > probably going to not pick up new customers and will slowly lose existing > ones. So you have a choice, carry on banging on about how U2 is so great, > (who really cares apart from some of us), or look at modernising your > application. I would pick the latter, and I would do it in such a way that my > new application architecture would enable to pick a chose different > technologies at the different layers (including DBMS) going forward. The > match of the application functionality to the business requirements is what is > going to sell it, not the fact that it runs on DBMS x or y. > > By using something like Microsoft SQL and its various versions, I can develop > something and then scale it up as my user count increases.....also all the > tools that I am using are fully integrated with it already without having to buy > 3rd party addons.... > > My 2c.... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- > > boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 8:15 a.m. > > To: 'U2 Users List' > > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > > > I find the whole licencing issue a real pain. > > > > > > > > Compare to sql server - express edition for free comes with 100 pooled > > connections as default - ok there is a max DB size > > > > > > > > I can then progress to a server licence - again any number of > connection > > pools. > > > > > > > > Connection pools on unidata i get about 5 for the same kind of money > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David > > Wolverton > > Sent: 01 February 2011 17:58 > > To: 'U2 Users List' > > Subject: Re: [U2] What do you do with CallHTTP? > > > > > > > > @George - you're probably right -- I found the doc on that link was > dated Feb > > / Mar of 2010 -- that was well into Rocket-realm, but perhaps they > just 'wrote > > up' the logic IBM used to make the change. And yes -- it appears the > any > > 'socket' sets iPhantoms. The problem is that the logic does not > address > > specifically the uses that could be 'abused' - but rather ALL uses. > > > > @Jeff / Symeon - That I can see, you don't 'consume' a 'purchased' > seat > > running a phantom UNTIL you do a anything 'socket' - even if that > Socket Use > > has the same use as a 'disk read'. As for use of cURL, WGet, etc - > these are > > examples of the issue as I see it. Those are still an option to do > exactly what > > we could do BEFORE this rule went into play, and we can still do those > even > > now without a license 'ding'. > > > > To me, that's the core of this issue: the change didn't 'fix' anything > except to > > create a barrier to adopting the Rocket-provided toolsets since > CallHTTP can > > no longer work in a Phantom without 'expense' to the customer. > > I mean, they spent the time and money to develop CallHTTP, but now I > can > > never use it again -- and sounds like a great number of people never > used it > > or already 'jumped ship' as well. And are still doing EXACTLY what the > change > > was designed to prevent! So what good was the 'effort' and 'hassle' > > for the change?? Did they really pick up additional revenue?? Or just > make > > people find 'non-U2' solutions?? > > > > So - As I see it, there was a logic error in the decision made by IBM, > > continued by Rocket. I (probably crazily) hope that they will revisit > the issue > > for CallHTTP. But from comments posted here, appears no one else is > > "impacted" by the Phantom license change. I am guessing people either > just > > silently re-wrote their code to 'skip over' CallHTTP rather than > complain, or > > had never adopted CallHTTP in the first place (used cURL/wGet before > > CallHTTP existed and never moved.) - So I will just work around it as > > everyone else did since it is not a 'group issue' worth pushing. > > > > Now, if they ever hamper the ability to run cURL/wGet, I guessing > there will > > be the massive outcry that didn't happen over this issue! LOL! > > > > Have to get started -- Sadly, no one is going to pay me to fix this. > And I write > > enough issues on my own without someone else creating issues for me! > > So... Goodbye CallHTTP -- Hellllo cURL! > > > > DW > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _____ > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3416 - Release Date: > 02/01/11 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _____ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3416 - Release Date: 02/01/11 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
