I like the 3270 data stream, but if I could make one change in industry usage it would be to replace most HTTP/HTML applications with X Window System (X11); SUN's old dream of X terminals, except that I see a thin client as being an application on a full fore PC, not a dedicated application on a minimal PC.
Long ago in a galaxy far away, I had to do software that provided a common interface to a bunch of dissimilar terminals. While I sort of used the 3270 as a starting point, I did away with things that I regarded as warts, e.g., all buffer addresses were 16 bits. Using an unmodified 3270 datastream would not have been satisfactory. And, yes, I did support various 3270 devices. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Phil Smith III [li...@akphs.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 7:29 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: 3270 terminals: CUT vs. DFT Martin Packer wrote: >It's such a nice efficient data stream that one might like to use it from >other platforms. "Efficient" how? Bandwidth? That's cheap now. 3270 data streams were fun because they were so complex. But expensive to program and use. And the fact that attribute bytes occupy space on the screen is really irritating when trying to design screens. I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to reuse it-and the fact that nobody ever has might be seen as supporting that position. But each to his own! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
