Re: Forms 9i middle tier on client?

Hi Frank,

you're right. The desupport is in 2004, not in 2003 as I mistakenly wrote. Maybe it was the graphics/reports component that I had in mind. But good news for Forms 6i and Windows XP. Until a few days ago it wasn't certified. Now it is.

Mark

Frank <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:<3E724EDB.3010406_at_netscape.net>...
> Mark Beck wrote:
> > DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3E67C80F.D02D8742_at_exesolutions.com>...
> >
> >>Ryan Gaffuri wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>mark.beck_at_gmx.de (Mark Beck) wrote in message news:<d055eff1.0303050635.3882c0fd_at_posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>due to the approaching desupport of Forms6i, which was client/server
> >>>>based,
> >>>>I'm searching for a solution with Forms9i. The design of my
> >>>>application is
> >>>>and should be c/s in the future, therefore without a dedicated
> >>>>application server/middle tier.
> >>>>The idea is to place the middle tier on the client(OC4J+Forms9i
> >>>>Servlet&Listener). As long as it meets the hardware specs(P3 >500 MHz;
> >>>>RAM 256Megs), this should be ok.
> >>>>The problem is, that I have found an oc4j standalone client on
> >>>>otn(<25Megs), which installs properly, but I don't know how to fit in
> >>>>the Forms90-Servlet. On the other side you have to install the
> >>>>complete OracleiDS Developer Suite(iDS) to get the Forms Developer and
> >>>>the Forms Servlet Engine on the client(no manual installation
> >>>>possible). That's around 1.8GB that I don't want to have on
> >>>>every client.. No option either is to install the complete iAS..
> >>>>
> >>>>Is there any way to get a "thin" oc4j+forms9i engine on a client?
> >>>>Has anyone tried that?
> >>>>
> >>>>Kind Regards
> >>>>Mark
> >>>
> >>>You lost me on your reasoning. Oracle took out all client server
> >>>support in 9i. If you want to use a client/server forms you can still
> >>>license 6i? Please explain WHY you are doing this?
> >>>
> >>>As far as thin. NO forms is a heavy weight tool. This is a huge
> >>>drawback to web base forms deployment. The network traffic is much
> >>>higher than with java or even with .net.
> >>>
> >>>BTW, why are you even doing a client/server application? All the above
> >>>being said its cheaper and easier to do a web deployment with forms
> >>>than a client/server. Ive done both. Now setting up the web server can
> >>>be a real pain to learn how to do it and making sure all your users
> >>>have a qualified browser is a little more work, but when that is done,
> >>>no other deployments????
> >>
> >>I can answer your question pretty easily. No need to a web server/app server, no need for that in-house web
> >>expertise, the fact that installation and configuration of 9iAS is a nightmare for almost everyone that
> >>hasn't been doing it for a long time, small user base sitting in a single office where client-server is
> >>faster, easier to maintain, and a lot less hassle.
> >>
> >>I'm building an app right now for a client that specifically doesn't want iDS 9i. They have a single
> >>server, 6 people in one office, and couldn't care less about web vs. client-server. They just want
> >>something that works.
> >>
> >>I am not at all convinced that iDS 9i was a great idea ... either technically or for marketing. In fact I
> >>think it was a blunder to remove functionality without a single benefit to show for the effort. And there
> >>is no excuse for a Form being any less efficient than Java other than someone at Oracle not forcing the
> >>developers to think smarter.
> >>
> >>Daniel Morgan
> >
> >
> > The reason for moving to 9i is simply the desupport at the end of
> > 2003. Oracle has moved this date from formerly 2006. I just don't like
> > the idea of using a desupported product like 6i in a production
> > environment. I think you know the answer from Oracle support in that
> > case if you have a problem: "move to...version x.. and call back
> > later".
> > So moving away from 6i becomes necessary. One option to stay c/s is to
> > migrate to java/oc4j/jdbc. Migration tools are available, but they do
> > only 95%, I guess. And most people know that the last 5% are the
> > biggest part of work
> > and costs. On the other side I'm familiar with forms and I tried the
> > 9i developer. It is almost exactly the same as 6i. The surface, the
> > development process and everything else. The only thing you have to do
> > to "migrate" from 6i to 9i is to recompile your *.fmx. The difference
> > is only the place of execution ( ifrun0.exe <->ifweb90.exe) and 9i
> > works impressingly well, surprisingly fast...
> > ...and with the least possible effort.
> >
> > Just compare the old and the new communication:
> >
> > client(6i.fmx <-> ifrun60.exe <-> sqlnet) <-> server
> > client(9i.fmx <-> applet <-> forms servlet <-> oc4j <-> jdbc) <->
> > server
> >
> > Ok, there are some more layers on the client and you need more memory,
> > but who cares? Everthing is working the same way as it did before. And
> > all you have to do would be to install java,jinitiator,the "thin"
> > forms engine on the client, that isn't available from Oracle(not
> > yet?!?), and recompile
> > your forms. That's it. Just simple!
> >
> > The reason why I don't like a dedicated app server is simple too:
> > Imagine 1000 Users working on a 24*7 high availability database. With
> > that scale you need an application server that is as big as the
> > database server itself( doubled costs) and the availability drops due
> > to an additional point of failure. And that is marketed to be better
> > than the way it is working now? I can't believe that.
> >
> > And to say it with a wink: Today you can answer user problem questions
> > like "I'm sorry, but another user has locked the row you're working
> > on; you can't change it at the moment" and that's understandable. And
> > in future? You'll have to answer this questions with sentences like:
> > "I'm sorry, but your persistent bean must have been fallen out of the
> > container.". "Hm?, Container?"...
> >
> > The only thing Oracle has to do to make a 9i c/s solution possible is
> > to allow the custom installation option of the iDS. That can't be that
> > complicated.
> >
> > I think it's ok to use iAS and pay for it if you're using an internet
> > application that has to take care of SQLNet Roundtrips for example or
> > just need a thin client without an Oracle installation. But to force
> > users to migrate to a complete new solution with additional costs(app
> > server license+hardware), which is worse( availability) and in that
> > short time( end 2003) is far from being ok; it's just silly.
> >
> > Mark
>
> End 2003 wasn't what stuck in my brains... Now that doesn't say much,
> so I just checked... ECS 31-12-2004, EAS 31-12-2007. See:
> http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=228666.1
Received on Tue Mar 18 2003 - 18:19:04 CET