Glenn Schneck writes: >However this notion that only IBM can do things correct, cheap, stable >and 'free' is not reality.
I never claimed that. >Does the base product for CICS have support for CICS web services - >yes it does, but it does not have all the necessary components? If it >did why would IBM sell RDz, WebSphere ESB, WebSphere Process Server and >many other products to use in conjunction for web services? That doesn't make logical sense. Starbucks sells hazelnut syrup for use in conjunction with their coffee. Does the existence of hazelnut syrup mean that a cup of coffee does not have all the "necessary components"? That's news to this coffee drinker. Those other products (and still others) exist because they are often valuable for particular projects. Are they required to develop and to use CICS Web Services? No. (Although Rational Developer for System z is darn useful, because if you've ever dealt with Web Services development it's just not fun in terminal emulation.) Moreover, the original poster has CICS Web Services up and running, today. >Would most companies need to invest in CICS Transaction Gateway? For Web Services? No. That's a different, excellent product for different purposes. Some companies have built/build Web Services (running in WebSphere Application Server, for example) using CICS Transaction Gateway as their connector to CICS Transaction Server, but that's not CICS Web Services. >How easy is it to defined composite services? Very. That's called the CICS Service Flow Feature. It's part of CICS Transaction Server, too. >Can the user call the service from multiple sources, such as Batch, >Java, .NET, VB, C? Yes, of course. CICS implements all the latest relevant Web Services standards, and they're bidirectional. As an example, the original poster is invoking Web Services from his COBOL batch programs (outbound from COBOL batch) using only CICS. >IBM is best served when they embrace and work with third party vendors >instead of trying to take over all aspects of mainframe processing. I'm confused. First you seem to be criticizing IBM for requiring several products to implement Web Services support for CICS, which isn't true. Then you're not happy when IBM provides complete Web Services support in CICS itself? Why don't you aim your fire at those awful people at the Apache Foundation? CICS uses Apache's Axis2 as the core of its Web Services support, which is a very good thing. Apache Axis2 is freely downloadable code, to which many developers (including IBM developers) contribute. Are you suggesting that IBM should somehow withhold access to this freely available code (if IBM could) specifically and only if you're a mainframe customer? Or, if you're suggesting IBM shouldn't make any functional improvements to its products, I can assure you that's not IBM's plan. (Thank goodness.) Web Services are pervasive and important, and that's why such functionality is built into CICS (and into IMS, as another example), just as TCP/IP is, just as TLS and SSL are. By the way, CICS Web Services (SOAP for CICS) debuted in 2003, almost 9 years ago now. There's also enormous opportunity for innovative third party products. Including in Web Services, I suspect, as long as there's value for money. Speaking only for myself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
