On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Joe Cygan wrote:
> Rodolfo Lopez ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> : I agree twice. JAM is a LOT slower than View and for our CJ users their
> : complaints on performance outweigh its benefits.
>
> Curious, I wonder why.  I guess its that View is accessing Image via totaly
> native means.  I would imagine that the JAM stuff is using ODBC or other
> TCP/IP means of data query.
 
Actually, Collier-Jackson calls subprograms from COBOL to handle the
screen IO.  These subprogams directly replace the VIEW intrinsics,
although the process and functionality may be quite different.  My
guess is that it is slow because 1) it is character based, and 2)
VIEW is written specifically for the 3000 environment.
 
> We use JAM and noticed that it's responce time is directly tied to network
> activity.  Especialy when using ODBC.  Oracle's SQL*Net is a effected less
> for some reason.
 
Our applications are not yet client/server or network based.  C-J is
moving in this direction, but I haven't seen any of their new product
line.  I do know that they are betting all their development on MS
Office Professional as the ideal desktop tool.  Talk about blind
worshiping of a vendor!
 
> But, developing in JAM is a DREAM!!!  I cracked the package open and within
> 90 minutes had a full blown application built to search a history table.
 
I have never seen the development package.  C-J sends only the runtime
portion of JAM with their releases.  Your comments certainly confirm that
the initial benefit to converting from VIEW to JAM will save time.  I hope
that is reflected in the ever escalating maintenance costs.  I don't
mean to focus on Collier-Jackson.  They have been okay over the years.
 
Regards,
 
--- John Joerger  ([log in to unmask])  ---  Press-Telegram (Long Beach)