| Author |
Message
|
| newbiedude |
 Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:15 am Post subject: Web Client vs. Workflow Fat Client |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Dec 2002
Posts: 87
|
Why is it that the web client cannot do everything that the fat-client is capable of doing why would you have 2 clients rather than 1?
Which do you prfer and why?
help please.
_________________
Newbiedude |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
The only things the Fat client does that the Thin client doesnt do by default are:
1. Issue a Start for a Workitem, you can however make the thin client use start.
2. Allow for the Start of a SupportTool, however, this facility is not used by many, and can be easily implemented.
The Thin client has the following advantages over the Fat Client:
1. Ability to use Checkout/Checkin without additional code.
2. Much better Monitor facility.
3. Ability to do ForceRestart/ForceFinish withContainer
4. Easy to customize.
The first thing to realize about the supplied clients, is that you probably don't want to use them without some modification. They are supplied by IBM to give you an idea as to how a client might behave.
The Fat client has existed since MQWF was introduced, but the Thin Client has only been recently rolled into the base MQWF. In the past the Thin Client was a support pack I believe.
The Thin client allows you to deploy your workflow system without having to put code on every user machine, (i.e. you only need a browser) and is therefore being used more.
I am not certain what you are referring to that the Fat client does, and the Thin client doesnt, other than what I have listed above. If you have something specific in mind tell us what it is.
Hope this helps.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| newbiedude |
| Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Dec 2002
Posts: 87
|
Jmac
Thank you. That was very informative. I have another question. Are there a minimum number of workflow components required and running, on the server through which the webclient communicates? i mean like database server or database client?? maybe?
The weblclient is relatively new to us and i noticed there's not a whole lot of concise documentation. 
_________________
Newbiedude |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
For workflow server to be running
The DB Server should be running and Workflow QueueManager should be running (In a 2-tier setup)
The DB Server should be running and the DB client should be able to communicate with the DB Server, Workflow QueueManager should be running (In a 3-tier setup).
Assuming you have DB, MQ QMGR and WF Server up and running, you may use whatever client you want to use. If it's a web-client then your AppServer should also be running.
---
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Newbiedude:
Like Venny said, it really doesnt matter what client you run. The MQWF components would be the same.
The difference with the WebClient is that you need the AppServer, other than that you have the same requirements.
GOOD LUCK
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| praveenchhangani |
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 192
Location: Chicago, IL
|
newbiedude: (cool screen name by the way!):
I like the thin client(web-client) in that it provides a good interface for not only the workflow admins, but also for ones's customers/business units (as installing the thick-client on every customer's desktop is probably not the best idea - financially and security wise as well).
Another thing I like about it better than the thick client(native) as John also pointed out,....is in it's ability to allow comfortable monitoring of processes.
I will say though, that if you have not implemented a custom web-client and are using the web-client out of the box from IBM; You are going to run into questions like....
Why am I unable to: 
1. Start
2. Force Restart
3. Delete
4. Force Finish etc. etc.
....multiple items at the same time. (So if you haven't customized the weblclient, for situations like the one above either you spend hours doing the above 1 by 1 or simply use the thick client.)
good luck!
-Praveen
_________________
Praveen K. Chhangani,
IBM Certified Solutions Designer -
MQ Workflow 3.4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| newbiedude |
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Dec 2002
Posts: 87
|
Paveen
I know..............., those were some of the same questions we had initially when we first got it setup. We are currently investigating whether or not to go with a custom implementation or have a work around of some sort.
will keep you guys posted. thanks for all the replies
_________________
Newbiedude |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jet |
| Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 49
Location: New York
|
| To me, both fat and web client are the same : only good for verification or testing...It is too generic...I will prefer to develop your own web-based Workflow solution using MQWF Java APIs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| jet wrote: |
| To me, both fat and web client are the same : only good for verification or testing...It is too generic...I will prefer to develop your own web-based Workflow solution using MQWF Java APIs. |
Actually, IMHO, the IBM clients allow the user to do too much (this may be what jet is saying also). I dont think you would ever want to deploy the IBM supplied fat client anywhere, but the IBM Thin client is easily modified. Some of the things that I don't like about the clients as supplied by IBM:
1. I dont want every user able to use the Monitor.
2. I dont want every user to have access to instance and template lists.
3. I dont want every user to be able to create private persistent lists.
4. In many cases I dont want to ever display a list to the average user.
If you want to do this things in a fat client way, write your own client, dont even think about modifiying the IBM supplied client.
If you want to do this with the thin client 2 and 3 can be implemented by changes in the WebClient Properties file but this would be for ALL users. So I normally would not go that route, I usually have a role called "Workflow Administrator" and in a modified listviewer.jsp I will only put the buttons to get at the Instances and Templates, and to create new lists in the generated HTML for users who have the Workflow Administrator role.
To implement 1, the only way Ive found to do this is in my modified ListViewer.jsp to use a substring to remove the monitor button from the String "customtags" that is generated. Effective, but UGLY. I really wish that IBM had NOT folded the Monitor into the commands that they generate automatically.
Implementing 4 is a little more difficult, essentially you no longer allow the user to pull from a worklist, you simply present them with the "Next" workitem when the request it. Once you are doing this, its a small step to using a "Virtual User"
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
