D
dbeavon
Guest
Have you ever tried to measure your fastest-possible round-trip on your appserver (ie. send in the customer number and get out the customer name)? If you did that a thousand times, would your average be under 5 ms? So if I understand, it sounds like you may be using OE-AVM processes that are running in batch mode (ie. each is a standard single threaded progress.) And you communicate with them by using ABL's TCP ports and you typically send/receive JSON for your serialization format (for the sake of performance). I'm wondering how that works from a Progress licensing perspective. If the database is on a remote server then the only Progress-related licenses needed would be their so-called "client networking", along with necessary DBMS licensing, right? I think the big advantage that PASOE has over this solution is faster serialization/deserialization between "openclient" and server, and it also has the multi-threaded AVM processes for better use of memory resources on the computer. Progress also has their proxygen for strongly-typed clients, and a bit more investment in the developer tools for ABL programmers. Either way, Progress shouldn't be requiring customers of "classic" appserver pay a premium to re-purchase something that amounts to the next version of appserver. Nor do I think they should pretend as if these are two different products that will both continue to be developed in parallel; the "classic" one is already at the end of its road, and soon they will probably discourage any new purchases of that one. From what I've seen, the bulk of the improvement in PASOE as compared to "classic" can be credited to the use of the free tomcat server. While I understand there is a lot of integration effort to make OE work well in a tomcat host, they should not be charging us for tomcat itself - and that is essentially what they are doing by claiming that this PASOE is a totally "new" or "different" product as compared to "classic".
Continue reading...
Continue reading...