What's Coming! - Forum - OpenEdge Architecture - Progress Community
 Forum

What's Coming!

  • >> I can't imagine that you're able to design a

    >> ProDataSet in the ABL-labguage without having a

    >> clear

    >> view of how it should be used and which problems

    >> it solves.

    When I read my quote once more, it's a bit negative.... which was not what I meant.

    So my utopia question was in some ways more aimed at

    how feasible is it to be able to get to a position

    where certain 'Reference Components' are provided by

    us, for instance, and some by the community, and at

    the same time making sure that no matter where the

    pieces originate, that they could plug & play

    together to form a bigger whole.

    We have something similar with Microsoft: they provide "application blocks" like caching, data access, etc, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/practices/guidetype/AppBlocks/. One of the problems with this is that you have to drag in other application blocks when you want to use one. Probably because the designers don't want to re-invent the wheel. So in reality it will be hard to create fully isolated blocks without any assumptions.

    So even a plug & play architecture doesn't mean that you can plugin anything...

    I think it's PSC responsibility to address the tough design decissions for a loosely coupled architecture:

    - should one use a data driven architecture or a model driven and why

    - how can one create database portable ABL-code

    - how do you deal with error handling & validation

    - how do you deal with batching in real life

    - what do we do with ABL-triggers

    - etc.

    It will be a challange to write something that is generic enough to be used by anyone, but detailed enough to address real life complexities.

    Could I expect someone

    in the community to then take our base classes plus

    the Authorization Interface, and provide an

    implementation for a particular security model?

    Perhaps when you give the developer an ego-boost by mentioning the creator of the component Open source projects have problem owners and members. That might be the difficult part here: find the proper balance in being able to update code and trusting the updater.

    but

    typically we see the same names crop up time and time

    again. (Now don't take umbridge and stop posting !!)

    That's what I meant as well. And we do not post/read for the same reasons. I find it fun reading what's going on in ABL, I'm no ABL-developer anymore...

    But we experience the same thing: very few PSC-names pop up in the forums...

    Could we have a true

    OE Community Process, similar to the JCP, where specs

    I think you have tried that with POSSE. People need results now. What would help is more feedback from PSC. That's what motivates "folks".

    But if I look back to my original

    vision statement for OE Principles :

    "OpenEdge Principles providing guidance in creating

    the worlds best business applications with OpenEdge

    through proven design, practices and community

    involvement", it's making sure we have the right

    balance of 'community involvement'.

    And the "proven design" part is the one that we're questioning every now and than...

    Keep up the good work, invest in collaboration!

  • While it certainly would be delightful to

    get to the point that we had a library of re-usable components for

    people to draw upon, I think that the most important ingredient is

    actually the thought processes and considerations which would go

    into making such components. In fact, I think that we have to

    proceed with the idea that there was a strong likelihood that

    people would take any such components and customize them. E.g.,

    someone has an existing security mechanism which has evolved over

    20 years to handle the authorization issues in a particular

    application and they are going to start migrating to an OERA

    architecture ... well, they are likely to take the

    security component and then modify it to fit the data structures in

    their existing mechanism. There is nothing wrong with this unless

    that system is trying to interoperate with another system and the

    two are not loosely coupled (and in a SOA, we would expect them to

    be loose). But, no, I don't want PSC to be the one defining the

    goals. Frankly, that is how we got ADM. I think the goals more than

    any other part need to come from the community because it is the

    community that knows hands on about the requirements of production

    systems. BTW, I should also note that in any one specific area, one

    is likely to have one or two persons who will take a leadership

    role in defining the problem and the backbone of the solution. They

    will take that role because they are interested and experienced in

    the topic, they have thought about the problem, and they are the

    ones with the passion and expertise. This doesn't need to be the

    PSC person in every case ... in fact, it might turn out that it was

    rarely the PSC person because in most cases the PSC person won't

    have the experience base.

    More PSC staff feedback on PSDN is certainly a positive thing, but

    I don't think it deals with the topic here. Getting substantial

    community input is going to require more than just posting on a

    forum.

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • >>I think one of the problems here is that 4GL (ABL) has a "limited" audience, since the >>tools are not as "easily available" as Java/C++/C/.Net.

    Shouldn't the OE platform be more accessible for students, schools and interested IT professionals ? Broaden the "audience" , build a larger community ....

    I am referring to what MS is doing with their Express Editions, for example ...

    Something like a free ABL development kit ...

    Jurgen Van Bouchaute.

  • No. Let's grow on our strength, not try to copy the techniques of those marketing to entirely different purposes. Whether or not PSC decides to offer free development kits, ABL isn't going to become the new Java. It would be nice for those who are already working in ABL and are stuck at employers who are on old version because they could keep their skills current, but it isn't going to lure in the masses.

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • No. ...

    In your opinion

  • I'm not saying that I am opposed to PSC doing it, but rather that one is dreaming to think that a free development kit is going to make ABL the next Java. If a free kit were offered, I am pretty sure there would be an up front rush from existing developers whose jobs keep them on old versions as well as shops working on old versions who just want to check out what's there in case they manage to modernize. A few others would get sent out and most would turn into shelfware. End of rush.

    On the other hand, if we build up the community, increase the resources, create open source projects, etc. we might build up things somewhat, but even then it is long, long, term before we make any mark on popularity. We just aren't in the running and we shouldn't be thinking that we should be trying to be. We've got a good thing going and its goodness doesn't depend on the mass market even knowing what we are.

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just thought the 'No.' was a little abrupt in reaction to someone else's opinion, and that maybe you'd really wanted to start by saying, 'In my opinion......'

  • When is it ever anything but my opinion?

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • I think this is an excellent idea. Do what MS did and "get em while they are young". then they carry the technology into their work place with them.

    Warning - A little hobby horse of mine

    If Progress could get its engine running in a JVM or the .NET CLR then it would ""much"" easier to share in an "Express" format .... I personally think its a little heavy at the moment because I'd see the PSC Express needing:

    • ABL Runtime

    • Eclipse

    • At least Workgroup DB

    • AppServer (lets say up to 20 agents)

    • Sonic (say single CPU version)

    • ProxyGen support

    With that you can do a lot of nifty stuff but its a lot to install. Also, with .NET I can build something in "Express" and run it anywhere with the .NET runtime. I can't as easily do that with Progress unless I write something that will run without a DB connection in WebClient.

  • Can we take this discussion off to a different thread so that we don't lose site of the topic in this one?

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • A Class based implementation of the OERA - This

    should be relatively self explanatory.

    >

    ....

    Architecture Made Simple (working title) - Firstly,

    yes it's a working title so fully expect the final

    name to change. We've spent quite a bit of time over

    the past few months putting out material that, to be

    honest, is probably more towards to medium to

    advanced level of things, rather than beginner level.

    So having worked through some of the hard stuff, we

    figured we should try and put together a more

    beginner level series of work that walks you through

    from concepts and techniques people are familiar

    with and more then likely using on a daily basis

    today, and gently introduce OERA concepts and ideas

    without you really noticing! It sounds like a neat

    trick, and going by what I've seen of the material

    so far, this is great stuff and one certainly to

    look forwards to. Expect to see this sometime in

    the Spring.

    I think this is great and I really think we need more "dummies" or "Starter" guides. Let me give a couple of examples:

    1. I think some of the BEST papers I ever read were the 4 white papers originally written to give guidance for the ProDataSets. They gave a quick intro but by the end of paper 4 you had a great grasp of what it was all about

    2. Auditing. I have to say this is something I have really struggled with. I've printed all the doco out from the manuals and PPT slides etc. I have to say I find it a little confusing and, in case, contradictory. There was one really good, if too short, paper called "A quick start guide" (I think). That showed how to get going really quickly. What it lacked was a part II, III and IV (or IIII on my clock, but I digress). I've finally got it down now (I think) but its taken me a week of reading. Also, there isn't any "performance metrics" - even if they were on sports or the ATM demo - that would have been a big help.

    3. LDAP - This appears to be a great getting started guide for this (I have not tried it yet though).

    4. There are a lot of people still on V9 (like me). What I'm trying to get is the "whats new V9 to 10.1B) guide. There are a LOT of "whats new guides" in between.

    5. Anthony talked about "try it out" when talking about AutoEdge and the architecture. This is great but ""time"" isn't always available. I think you guys are missing out of a fantastic tool here. ProLint. I would have liked to have seen some "ProLint" rules that we could run on our apps to show us parts that would need upgrading. E.g. You have a form with direct "for each" support it ... UPDATE: You need to n-tier you app. Please refer to the following web links for examples etc

    Anyway, I strongly look forward to the Spring series on "Arch made simple".

    Thanks for the good work all

    Murray

  • Of course, ProLint is not a PSC

    product. You should put suggestions into the issue tracker at

    http://www.oehive.org/prolint . You will note that there has been

    some thought in this direction, but it isn't easy.

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • Actually - I'd prefer a Wiki ....

  • A wiki for what?

    If for the version differences, my point is that one person is considering moving from 9.1C to 10.1B, another from 10.1A to 10.1B and a third from 10.0 to 10.1A. Putting all that in documents ... and wikis are still documents ... means a lot of collecting the right pieces and then reading them. With a database driven solution, each person could ask what database changes are there between version A and version B and get a compact answer.

    Consulting in Model-Based Development, Transformation, and Object-Oriented Best Practice  http://www.cintegrity.com

  • Not to mention needing a demo machine with Sonic,

    IIS, and current Progress to install it on. I think

    it is great that the code is available separately,

    but it would be nice to have at the very least a good

    video showing it being used, if not a way to use it

    remotely.

    This was/is an interesting challenge and one we did give a fair amount of consideration too. Could we create Virtual Machine images and let people down load those? But they would be big downloads, and how would we stand on licensing as each vm would include a copy of XP? We also considered something like MS did with their Office 2007 Live trial where you can access a remote VM, but you can imagine that takes some setting up and wouldn't be a trivial exercise.

    So I think we took a pragmatic approach and there are recordings, in fact quite a few. One gives an overall demo or guided tour (http://www.psdn.com/library/entry.jspa?externalID=1697&categoryID=298) , the others concentrate on specific topic areas (http://www.psdn.com/library/entry.jspa?externalID=1701&categoryID=298). So are you saying those recordings have missed something?