Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio

Pete Dashwood wrote:
"Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gectep0d99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pete Dashwood wrote:
I think you did a very good job. I certainly learned somethng about where MF COBOL for .NET is at.

I'd still like someone with MF access to comment on support for COM (not necessarily COM+; I'd agree that WCF looks like the way to go on that...).

I dunno, not having looked at COM. Perhaps Michael may be able to offer a small M/F sample program.

I think you threw out a suggestion that I or somebody else should perhaps give it a go. Well, yes.... I was thinking, rather than sit idle and going potty, (going 'potty', not going to the 'potty' or the Great White Telephone that people use to upchuck after too much booze :-)....... Perhaps I'd take a look at this Web stuff. Mind you, and I knew in advance when in that COBDATA message you 'pleaded the Fifth' or 'you hadn't been Miranda-ized' - i.e. "Jimmy, you don't know how difficult the topic is....". I had guessed that without even looking - that's not me being a Smart Alec, but just a gut feeling.

The nearest I got was reading Will's SECOND BOOK which described HTML, XML, God knows what other ?MLs - since, I've completely forgotten the definitions and will have to start all over again. However, so far as you are concerned with a demo from me, I'd reckon we are talking at least three months away, and of course it wont be dotNet.

Obviously, within my Migration model, components are essential for leveraging existing COBOL functionality, and I see the refactoring as being quite labour intensive. Wrapping existing functionality as COM components (see the COBOL structure analysis tool) is pretty easy in the Fujitsu environment.

Jimmy
.