INFO-VAX Mon, 26 May 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 293 Contents: RE: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Re: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Re: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards RE: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Re: DEC Document Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters RE: Galaxy on ES45 ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Re: ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Re: ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Tier3 today - And Flex-it like NASDAQ (*Only better!*) Re: Tier3 today - And Flex-it like NASDAQ (*Only better!*) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:13:36 -0400 From: "Peter Weaver" Subject: RE: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Message-ID: <00d101c8bf43$12c89b30$2802a8c0@CHARONLAP> > -----Original Message----- > From: IanMiller [mailto:gxys@uk2.net] >... > We (Ken, Ian & Marty) here at OpenVMS.org had decided to do a trial > run for a "2007 Readers' Choice Awards". The idea has been discussed >... Thanks to OpenVMS.org for putting together the Readers' Choice Awards and an extreme thank you to everyone who voted for Weaver Consulting Services Inc. in the "Systems Management/Performance" category. The look on my 4 year old child's face when she congratulated me for the win was absolutely priceless. Thank you. Peter Weaver www.WeaverConsulting.ca www.OpenVMSvirtualization.com www.VAXvirtualization.com www.AlphaVirtualization.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:14:07 -0700 (PDT) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Message-ID: <5195bfd0-e06a-4862-86c6-37c5ffd50c83@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On May 26, 4:13 pm, "Peter Weaver" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IanMiller [mailto:g...@uk2.net] > >... > > We (Ken, Ian & Marty) here at OpenVMS.org had decided to do a trial > > run for a "2007 Readers' Choice Awards". The idea has been discussed > >... > > Thanks to OpenVMS.org for putting together the Readers' Choice Awards and an > extreme thank you to everyone who voted for Weaver Consulting Services Inc. > in the "Systems Management/Performance" category. The look on my 4 year old > child's face when she congratulated me for the win was absolutely priceless. > Thank you. > > Peter Weaverwww.WeaverConsulting.ca www.OpenVMSvirtualization.comwww.VAXvirtualization.com www.AlphaVirtualization.com 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Award Winners Security / Auditing: PointSecure, http://www.PointSecure.com Systems Management / Performance: Weaver Consulting Services, http://www.WeaverConsulting.ca Communications / Messaging: CommuniGate Systems, http://www.CommuniGate.com Services / Consulting: Hoffman Labs, http://www.HoffmanLabs.com Training: Bruden-OSSG, http://www.BrudenOSSG.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Message-ID: <8a41e42b-9348-47d0-abee-34d76a0dda08@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Has your 4 year old got very far with DCL yet? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:35:23 -0400 From: "Peter Weaver" Subject: RE: 2007 OpenVMS.org Readers' Choice Awards Message-ID: <00f501c8bf56$e0ea4000$2802a8c0@CHARONLAP> > Has your 4 year old got very far with DCL yet? Both my children (#2 will be 7 weeks old on Wednesday, any questions = about why I did not go to Bootcamp?) were born with DCL hardwired in their = brains and EDT in their fingers. :) Peter Weaver www.WeaverConsulting.ca=A0=A0 =A0 www.OpenVMSvirtualization.com www.VAXvirtualization.com=A0 www.AlphaVirtualization.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 05:39:42 -0700 (PDT) From: IanMiller Subject: Re: DEC Document Message-ID: On May 26, 1:34 am, wayne.sew...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 19, 5:03 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:44:44 -0700, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: > > > I did some work for TTI. I'll fire off an email to Dan Esbensen if you'd > > > like or I can forward his email to you. > > > Please do. You might also suggest that maybe it would be a good idea if > > they > > don't want to or can't support Document that they release it as open source > > like Matt did with MX > > Matt isn't doing mx any more? I had noticed that the mailing list > kinda went away. Where is the open source for mx kept? From Waaay back in Feb this year http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=08/02/05/9642981 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:26:36 GMT From: "Colin Butcher" Subject: Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Message-ID: The FC protocol moves data between devices. That's all it's designed to do. The way you set the infrastructure up determines which systems can see which devices. That's what "zoning" in the FC switches does (it's analogous to VLANs in a data network). In a SAN infrastructure where the zoning allows all HBAs to see all tape devices then you will have to implement some form of access control to ensure synchronised and serialised access to the available pool of tape drives. Do beware of having Windows boxes capable of seeing the tape and robot devices as well as your VMS systems - the Windows removable storage service and the device drivers have a nasty habit of probing the tape and robot devices every so often, which can play havoc with operations in progress. It's easy enough to fix - just disable the relevant services and device drivers in the Windows boxes, or set up the zoning so that the Windows boxes cannot see the tape devices. If you choose to have all your systems see all your storage devices or tape devices then you have to deal with the consequences by ensuring that you don't have multiple systems attempting to access the same device at the same time. It's not a problem that's unique to tapes. Disc storage arrays implement "device presentation" that describe which HBA WWIDs (systems) can access which available storage units (see the EVA Vdisk presentations or look at selective presentation in HSGs). Tapes don't implement device presentation as far as I'm aware - and while it might be a useful concept (presentations being a little easier to work with than SAN zoning) you'd still have to arbitrate access to the tapes if more than one system can see the tapes at any given instant in time. In a VMS environment that's what ABS/MDMS does for you. ABS uses network communications to arbitrate access to the tape devices by having one (or more for redundancy) ABS servers allocate tape devices to client systems, the ABS servers manage the tapes and moving them around using the robot, then the ABS clients perform the backup functions directly to the tapes, then the ABS servers take care of the tape moving again. Alternatively you should be able to write something pretty simple to synchronise access to the tape devices and robots, then used BACKUP as and when you need to. All you need to do is keep track of the tapes, robots and backup jobs across the separate clusters. You could also control tape access by using SAN zoning in the SAN switches, thus restricting access from a single cluster to a single known set of tapes, however you'd have to change the SAN zoning if you needed to make those tapes available to other nodes / clusters. However, why bother doing all that when you can buy the ABS server and client components? It's what I've done for the big systems I've been designing and building recently. ABS has been around for a good few years now. It works pretty well on the whole. It's also worth reading the SAN design reference guide to understand SAN zoning and a few other things. See here: http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/DocumentIndex.jsp?contentType=SupportManual&locale=en_US&docIndexId=179911&taskId=101&prodTypeId=12169&prodSeriesId=406734 It's not that difficult once you understand what's going on and why it all works as it does, then figure out what mechanisms you need to use to achieve what's needed. -- Cheers, Colin. Legacy = Stuff that works properly! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 12:21:38 GMT From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing) Subject: Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Message-ID: <00A7A278.D678344C@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> In article , "Colin Butcher" writes: >However, why bother doing all that when you can buy the ABS server and >client components? It's what I've done for the big systems I've been >designing and building recently. ABS has been around for a good few years >now. It works pretty well on the whole. I think the reason Wayne can't do that is that he's supporting a third-party competitor to ABS. -- Alan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 05:51:48 -0700 (PDT) From: wayne.sewell@gmail.com Subject: Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Message-ID: On May 26, 6:26 am, "Colin Butcher" wrote: > The FC protocol moves data between devices. That's all it's designed to do. > > The way you set the infrastructure up determines which systems can see which > devices. That's what "zoning" in the FC switches does (it's analogous to > VLANs in a data network). In a SAN infrastructure where the zoning allows > all HBAs to see all tape devices then you will have to implement some form > of access control to ensure synchronised and serialised access to the > available pool of tape drives. > > Do beware of having Windows boxes capable of seeing the tape and robot > devices as well as your VMS systems - the Windows removable storage service > and the device drivers have a nasty habit of probing the tape and robot > devices every so often, which can play havoc with operations in progress. > It's easy enough to fix - just disable the relevant services and device > drivers in the Windows boxes, or set up the zoning so that the Windows boxes > cannot see the tape devices. > Typical billybox behavior. But there's also the possibility that any one of those foreign systems, billy or otherwise, could deliberately intend to use a tape drive, which would amount to the same thing. > If you choose to have all your systems see all your storage devices or tape > devices then you have to deal with the consequences by ensuring that you > don't have multiple systems attempting to access the same device at the same > time. It's not a problem that's unique to tapes. Disc storage arrays > implement "device presentation" that describe which HBA WWIDs (systems) can > access which available storage units (see the EVA Vdisk presentations or > look at selective presentation in HSGs). Tapes don't implement device > presentation as far as I'm aware - and while it might be a useful concept > (presentations being a little easier to work with than SAN zoning) you'd > still have to arbitrate access to the tapes if more than one system can see > the tapes at any given instant in time. > > In a VMS environment that's what ABS/MDMS does for you. ABS uses network > communications to arbitrate access to the tape devices by having one (or > more for redundancy) ABS servers allocate tape devices to client systems, > the ABS servers manage the tapes and moving them around using the robot, > then the ABS clients perform the backup functions directly to the tapes, > then the ABS servers take care of the tape moving again. > Tapesys/JB can perform these functions as well, with only the cross- cluster locking of the tape drives missing. I just wasn't aware that the vms allocate command didn't work in this situation. Like a child of nature, I just assumed that device locking was handled by the fibre channel protocol and vms. I never dreamed that a vms environment would allow such chaos. This type of thing is for the billyworld, not vms. > Alternatively you should be able to write something pretty simple to > synchronise access to the tape devices and robots, then used BACKUP as and > when you need to. Yes, that is what I was planning. The reason for the post is to see if something is already out there that does this (just the locking, have no interest in abs). >All you need to do is keep track of the tapes, robots and > backup jobs across the separate clusters. > Got that part. > You could also control tape access by using SAN zoning in the SAN switches, > thus restricting access from a single cluster to a single known set of > tapes, however you'd have to change the SAN zoning if you needed to make > those tapes available to other nodes / clusters. > Yes, I am aware of that, and I assume most customers are using zoning. In all the years that people have been using fibre channel, this is the first complaint about crosstalk I have had from a customer. > However, why bother doing all that when you can buy the ABS server and > client components? It's what I've done for the big systems I've been > designing and building recently. ABS has been around for a good few years > now. It works pretty well on the whole. > I am not likely to do that, since I maintain a competing product. :-) Now that I understand the situation, it is easy enough to add such locking to tapesys and JB. > It's also worth reading the SAN design reference guide to understand SAN > zoning and a few other things. See here:http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/DocumentIndex.jsp?co... > > It's not that difficult once you understand what's going on and why it all > works as it does, then figure out what mechanisms you need to use to achieve > what's needed. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 17:17:53 GMT From: "Colin Butcher" Subject: Re: fibre channel tape drives accessed from multiple clusters Message-ID: <5hC_j.9712$DZ6.2474@text.news.virginmedia.com> I'm sure you'll figure the locking out. Tapesys / JB needs it, just as ABS / MDMS and other similar products needs in in a shared-device access configuration such as that provided by fibrechannel. The same problem can exist with discs too - you have to design the storage presentations so that only members of the same cluster can see the disc devices they need, then cluster-wide access is handled in the usual manner. If you present devices to all clusters then it's easy enough to cross-mount a disc from another node or cluster and thus screw up the file system on the target disc. The base FC protocols are "stateless", which is why synchronisation and serialisation of access to devices has to be done elsewhere. It would be nice to have an extension to the tape drive capability to make it "stateful" such that only one HBA port in a machine could access the tape drive at any one time, with a means of locking-out access for other HBA ports while the tape device is genuinely in use by another HBA. Maybe there's room for a FC DAM (FC Device Access Method) or FC TAP (FC Tape Access Protocol) layered on top of the basic FC transport to handle the tape allocate, read/write and deallocate sequence? You also have to handle the devices or nodes "going away" or otherwise failing part way through the sequence of operations while those nodes are using the target tape device. It's not just a billybox problem, you have to cater for all operating systems that have access to the visible SAN devices and which will probe the SAN devices / LUNs on boot or driver load / reset etc. to determine their capabilities. Handling arbitration of FC device access control over an "atomic" sequence of operations is a tricky little problem and would require low-level things such as device driver changes to handle the "someone else has this drive in use, please try later" errors. It's going to be fun to test it. Good luck. -- Cheers, Colin. Legacy = Stuff that works properly! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:36:09 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Galaxy on ES45 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Arne Vajh=F8j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk] > Sent: May 25, 2008 8:14 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Galaxy on ES45 > > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > > Perhaps because there wasn't much demand? > > > > Galaxy, IIRC, allowed you to run N instances of VMS on a Galaxy > capable > > box with N CPUs. Or, you could devote two CPU's to the same O/S > > instance and run two instances on a four CPU box. You could cluster > > these instances. I never quite saw the point. > > > > From DEC/Compaq/HP's point of view, they sold a Galaxy license for > each > > additional instance, and possibly a cluster license as well. > > > > Perhaps very few saw the point. > > True. > > But considering how VMWare sell today, then maybe Galaxy > could have sold better with the right marketing and > pricing. > > Arne Well, that might be part of it, but the OpenVMS Cust might simply ask "why not just run these applications on the same OS instance?" For Windows/Linux environments, cultural and technical issues make App sharing extremely difficult. Hence, VMware is an easy short term solution for them. Course, they soon have to manage VM's that multiply like rabbits, but that's another discussion. OpenVMS Cust's have been doing App sharing for decades. Having stated this, I have heard of a few instances where some Cust's Have asked for the capability to create OpenVMS Dev instances quickly, but when pressed with the blades alternative, quite a few of them preferred the blade approach since there was no virtual drivers etc and the blade environment presented a closer reality to their prod Integrity environments. Regards Kerry Main Senior Consultant HP Services Canada Voice: 613-254-8911 Fax: 613-591-4477 kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT) OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 05:58:07 -0700 (PDT) From: FrankS Subject: ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Message-ID: <9e6babc9-6c26-4d08-a538-6e6dc40aa431@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> I converted a disk to ODS-5 this weekend, using $BACKUP/IMAGE/NOINIT to a spare disk instead of $SET VOLUME. That was to preserve the old disk in the event of problems. Anyway, after the BACKUP completed the new ODS-5 disk had about 6,000,000 fewer free blocks than the old. That's about 10% of the total disk space (36gb drive). Needless to say, that caught me off guard. Is there anything documented which mentions this additional space premium? It is understandable, given the additional information being stored for each file (more dates, for one), but I read through a couple of manuals and couldn't find anything that mentioned the space penalty. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:29:55 -0400 From: "Ken Robinson" Subject: Re: ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Message-ID: <7dd80f60805260629l11250a48wda56b80a19de917f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:58 AM, FrankS wrote: > I converted a disk to ODS-5 this weekend, using $BACKUP/IMAGE/NOINIT > to a spare disk instead of $SET VOLUME. That was to preserve the old > disk in the event of problems. > > Anyway, after the BACKUP completed the new ODS-5 disk had about > 6,000,000 fewer free blocks than the old. That's about 10% of the > total disk space (36gb drive). > I highly doubt that the ODS-5 conversion had anything to do with the space problem. Some questions need to be answered since you did a backup/noinit Were the two disks initialized using the same parameters? What version of VMS were the two disks initialized on? (This may or may not affect any thing) What type of machine? (Alpha, IA64, VAX) Check the cluster size of both drives, if they are different that is probably where your space went. If I were to do this, I would do a normal image backup to the spare drive and then do a set volume. I would also add the "/truncate" option to, possibly, get back any wasted space. Ken ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 2008 13:47:35 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: ODS-5 space usage .vs. ODS-2 Message-ID: <483abf77$0$15193$607ed4bc@cv.net> In article <7dd80f60805260629l11250a48wda56b80a19de917f@mail.gmail.com>, "Ken Robinson" writes: >On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:58 AM, FrankS wrote: >> I converted a disk to ODS-5 this weekend, using $BACKUP/IMAGE/NOINIT >> to a spare disk instead of $SET VOLUME. That was to preserve the old >> disk in the event of problems. >> >> Anyway, after the BACKUP completed the new ODS-5 disk had about >> 6,000,000 fewer free blocks than the old. That's about 10% of the >> total disk space (36gb drive). >> > >I highly doubt that the ODS-5 conversion had anything to do with the >space problem. Some questions need to be answered since you did a >backup/noinit > >Were the two disks initialized using the same parameters? >What version of VMS were the two disks initialized on? (This may or >may not affect any thing) >What type of machine? (Alpha, IA64, VAX) > >Check the cluster size of both drives, if they are different that is >probably where your space went. > >If I were to do this, I would do a normal image backup to the spare >drive and then do a set volume. I would also add the "/truncate" >option to, possibly, get back any wasted space. > >Ken I'll second Ken's sentiments. Take a look at the number of file headers created on the newly converted device in contrast to the prior settings. Is the cluster factor the same? ODS5 file header information can fit in the space of the traditional ODS2 file header block. There shouldn't be a marked allocation difference due to the volume now accepting ODS5 semantics. 6M blocks is a significant dip on a 36G drive but I'd doubt that ODS5 is the contributing factor. Look at other volume criteria for a consumption of these blocks. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:48:27 +0800 From: "Richard Maher" Subject: Tier3 today - And Flex-it like NASDAQ (*Only better!*) Message-ID: Hi, For those who have looked at my Flex-Charting/VMS/3GL/Rdb demonstration and may be wondering about where to draw the line between Java/Javascript/HTML and Flex/Flash, and how harmoniously these technologies can work together to deliver that RIA experience to your end-users, you may wish to have a look at www.nasdaq.com click on "Quotes, Charts & Research" then choose some stock (I chose "IONA, TIBX, HP" to see why a company with resources as vast as HP's apparently doesn't have an SOA person worth listening to at Bootcamp) and then click on "Interactive Charts". This definitely looks like "a work in progress" for NASDAQ as they move away from static, server-generated charts. (And they've finally gotten over that annoying "Click on this control to activate" message. See avoidpatent.js in http://manson.vistech.net/t3$examples/ to see similar) But what I'd like to do is use these two Flex-Charting examples to illustrate and contrast the true beauty of Adobe's FABridge functionality (or their external interface direct). If you click on NASDAQ's Javascript-backed checkbox(es) to add additional stock to the chart (in my case HP) you with see that it goes off to the server and looks to completely reload the chart via "chartHolder.innerHTML=showChart(blah,blah)" in a Web1.5(esque) display, whereas with the Tier3 example, all of the Flex controls such ArrayCollections are completely accessible via the Javascript in Employee_Lookup.html, with full Web2.0 credentials. No reloading of any HTML Objects or chart re-instancing, all ActionScript components, and their accompanying methods, are laid bare and fully accessible by your Javascript. For example : - employeeFeed = flexApp.getEmployeeFeed(); : : : var employee = buildEmployee(empMsgField, empRec); employeeFeed.addItem(employee); The addItem() above is an actionscript method on a mxml ArrayCollection component being accessed directly from Javascript. Now, I clearly do not have the resources of a NASDAQ, but I offer my humble code as an example of what can be achieved *today* for those VMS sites that are thinking of leaving and migrating to something more GUI and/or Web friendly. All modesty aside, I think it's safe to say that, given just a fraction of the resources that VMS Middle Management has squandered on DECForms, BridgeWorks, SOAP/Toolkit, WSIT and now gSOAP, my efforts would have resulted in a far greater ROI for the VMS License-payer. But that would be akin to"merit-based project funding" I suppose, and not nearly as much fun as doling out to your buddies' projects from the VMS-license-fee coffers, as if it were your own money? But of course, they were born to rule, and have twenty years experience at screwing the VMS client-base under their belt! Woe betide anyone with the impertinence to ask "What the fuck are they there for?"! Cheers Richard Maher PS. Apparently my example works with OS-X and FireFox but not Safari. If anyone knows why them please let me know. (Some Vista IE clients are also experiencing the problem where the "GO" button turns red but nothing is returned and something like "FABridge is not defined". Curious!) Still to come: Broadcasted server to client messages, that can either trigger - JSObject.call() - a client call back to the server for further info, or perhaps a modal Java popup with some status/stock-price/opcom message. (Nothing much to do with Tier3 but still nice to see. (Will be useful for the Ajax(esque) callback after server read)) "Richard Maher" wrote in message news:g02hgo$4gp$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au... > Hi, > > If you'd like to see an example of a browser-based Flex/HTML/Javascript GUI > client talking to a VMS 3GL server, please click on: - > > http://manson.vistech.net/t3$examples/demo_client_flex.html > > and have a gander. > > Username: TIER3_DEMO > Password: QUEUE > > You *must* be running: - > > . The *latest* version of Adobe's Flash Player (Adobe and FlexBuilder > generate the code for version checking and auto-download but I left it out > of the example for brevity) > . JVM 1.4-2 or later (Java 6 has been out for over a year; what's wrong with > ya :-) > . If you are behind a firewall that disables outgoing connections then you > must open up to destination port 5255. > . You must have Javascript and Applets enabled for your browser > . Apart from that I've tested it with IE6/7 and Firefox and others have it > working on Safari and Opera > > Now, sadly, I was unable to obtain any sort of Rdb Hobbyists license for the > Deathrow Cluster so I've had to provide a fudge in that the data is > hard-coded in DEMO_UARS.COB :-( But if you want to see what the Rdb code on > our machines looks like then peruse: - > > http://manson.vistech.net/t3$examples/ > > For all of the source code: - > > Server: - > > demo_flex.cob (Cobol server code) > build_flex_demo.com (Creates the UAR shareable) > demo_flex_sql.sqlmod (SQL you guessed it) > > Client: - > > demo_client_flex.html } > employee_lookup.html } All the Application-specific html > avoidpatent.js } > > bridgetest.mxml } The Flex driving logic (I can't believe it's that small!) > > Those who are familiar with demo_client_web.html are already familiar with > the example Java classes and CornuCopiae.html. NB: *NO* new Java was created > for the new application! Code reuse and modularity set to maximum! > > Cheers Richard Maher > > ps. If you'd like to see this on HP's TestDrive Cluster *with* Rdb then tell > me (or better still tell your HP rep!) Maybe it's just me, but surely you'd > be forgiven for wondering why Oracle/Rdb or HP/VMS would not seize on this > opportunity to promote and support their wares? > > pps. If you haven't worked it out yet :-) hover over the pie charts and > click for data drill-down. > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:23:51 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: Tier3 today - And Flex-it like NASDAQ (*Only better!*) Message-ID: Richard Maher wrote: > Hi, > ... > All modesty aside, I think it's safe to say that, given just a > fraction of the resources that VMS Middle Management has squandered on > DECForms, BridgeWorks, SOAP/Toolkit, WSIT and now gSOAP,... Well now, you're mixing apples with oranges I'd say. Yes, DECForms (and maybe Bridgework, I do not know) are server/client tools, just as any Flex based solution. But WSIT or (g)SOAP are mainly server/server tools and has a rather different usage. It's not fully clear to me why you're messing them up like that. I guess you should be able to see the difference. I've been using the gSOAP tools on VMS myself for some time to access a public service that is WS/SOAP based. I have *no* control what-so-ever of that other service. As I see it, it's better to have the WS/SOAP tools then to not having them whenever someone asks you to have your VMS apps access some *other* WS/SOAP based application out there... And the gSOAP port to VMS was on a specific customer request to have something to be able to call *other* WS/SOAP servers from (legacy) VMS/COBOL code/apps, if I understood the developers correctly. Tools (like Flex or Tier3) to build (PC) client (web- based) applications are a quite different issue... Best Regards, Jan-Erik. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.293 ************************