Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43 (16bit)
in [Cobol]
|
From: UK-Contractor42 on 20 Dec 2006 06:51 One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching, documenting and testing changes to it. Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43, Gupta SQL Pre-Compiler 2.5.2, SLQ*Base9. Prod. platform is NT4 SP6, XP SP1. Will be XP SP2 in 2007, and likely to be Vista before the system is decommissioned. Yes I realise this is stone age stuff but there is no budget to re-compile as 32bit COBOL or rewrite using Visual Studio. Have had some success understanding the components that need to be in place to amend, pro-compile, compile and link and built a second working build PC. Will be trawling though the help files next (there are no manuals). It would be great to get in touch with anyone who is using a 16bit version of Microfocus COBOL, or who has used it relatively recently. The Client, an Global Insurer, appreciate the situation is risky - that's why I'm onsite! If anyone knows of any imminent dangers presented by staying with 3.2.43 I would especially like to hear from them.
From: ski on 20 Dec 2006 13:54 UK-Contractor42 wrote: > One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable vulnerable to what? > application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching, > documenting and testing changes to it. u really want (sure) documenting foreigner code? current state tested and test available? > Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43, Gupta > SQL Pre-Compiler 2.5.2, SLQ*Base9. > Prod. platform is NT4 SP6, XP SP1. Will be XP SP2 in 2007, and likely > to be Vista before the system is decommissioned. > > Yes I realise this is stone age stuff but there is no budget to > re-compile as 32bit COBOL or rewrite using Visual Studio. hmm, depnd on what u mean "re-compile as 32bit COBOL" and global target, re-compiling as 32bit COBOL maybe cheapest solution. > depending on volume of source code, used languages/libraries, database(s) style, import/export requirements, specific hardware used, source writting style, availability of somebody understanding what this beast should do and what not, and is all of "somebodes" saying the same .... this might be a year(s) task.
From: Richard on 20 Dec 2006 15:51 UK-Contractor42 wrote: > Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43, Gupta > SQL Pre-Compiler 2.5.2, SLQ*Base9. 3.2 is 1994 for DOS, OS/2 and Windows 3.0. It wasn't even the last of this series, there was a 3.4 that I have here. I would assume that the application is DOS using ADIS (Accept/DISplay). The good news is that you could build complete applications and avoid having to buy run-time licences for each user - as long as you avoided certain features and used .exe and not .int or .gnt. > Prod. platform is NT4 SP6, XP SP1. Will be XP SP2 in 2007, and likely > to be Vista before the system is decommissioned. The risk is that DOS programs no longer run, that files get corrupted by not locking correctly, or that you can no longer access the SQL because it won't run, can't get client libraries, or some other. > Yes I realise this is stone age stuff but there is no budget to > re-compile as 32bit COBOL or rewrite using Visual Studio. The 'easy' way would be to get MicroFocus Application Server (or whatever they sell now) and pay huge amounts for run-time licences on every machine. Depending on how far it is distributed this may well be cheaper to completely rewrite into something else. > Have had some success understanding the components that need to be in > place to amend, pro-compile, compile and link and built a second > working build PC. > Will be trawling though the help files next (there are no manuals). A 'second working build PC' sounds dangerously like exceeding your compiler licencing unless you had bought several. > It would be great to get in touch with anyone who is using a 16bit > version of Microfocus COBOL, or who has used it relatively recently. I have been known to throw the odd source code at MF Cobol 3.4 recently. > The Client, an Global Insurer, appreciate the situation is risky - > that's why I'm onsite! If anyone knows of any imminent dangers > presented by staying with 3.2.43 I would especially like to hear from > them. The wife has been agitating for me to get another UK based project so that she can have another holiday. Feel free to suggest that the system should be reimplemented to, say, Fujitsu Cobol and Flexus SP2 to give a modern front end to the existing business logic while keeping external costs (except me and thee) down and minimising risk. I could handle that.
From: P. Raulerson on 20 Dec 2006 20:58 Yow- tough situation. Forgetting all the good reasons to move to something new, you don't have a lot of options. I suppose they have reasons not to move the platform right away. The best answer to this situation is simple - do not move it. Just 'rehost' it on VM. You can put it on a very fast high quality machine, use the same OS that is working now, but have the ability to quickly move it to another physical machine or VM. By quickly, we are talking about within five to ten minutes. The benefits? 10 to 20 times the processing power, insulation from hardware issues, absolute compatibility with the existing system, safe secure backups, rapid deployment for disaster recovery, and on top of that, you can (disregarding license issues) easily have a test/development system and a production system. The disadvantages - still dependent upon outdated unsupported software and non-supported OS. But this is not a problem because they are going to replace that software with some new whizbang stuff, right? This is something you can implement in about a day. Do it, do the changes and testing, impress you client, and then engage them for immediate follow-on work. Roughly the cost you are looking at to this: New PC Hardware: $4K - $11K. Depending upon the needs. $11K = new dual-core dual processor IBM LS20 blade with dual fibre connections & eight gigs of RAM on board. VM software (Free to about $4K). NT Software, Compiler, etc. Already in place. So cost (in the U.S. you are on your own in the U.K.) is anywhere from $4K to $15K, a very reasonable cost to extend the life of a critical system. And yes, you could host it on a Windows Server or Windows Vista machine without any trouble. Time to implement: Time for you to make the changes and test them plus one to two days. -Paul "UK-Contractor42" <lawrence.foster(a)uk.zurich.com> wrote in message news:1166615483.662939.45100(a)48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... > One of my current contract tasks is to put a old, vulnerable > application based on 16bit code on a firmer footing by researching, > documenting and testing changes to it. > Build architecture is Windows NT4 SP4, Microfocus COBOL 3.2.43, Gupta > SQL Pre-Compiler 2.5.2, SLQ*Base9. > Prod. platform is NT4 SP6, XP SP1. Will be XP SP2 in 2007, and likely > to be Vista before the system is decommissioned. > > Yes I realise this is stone age stuff but there is no budget to > re-compile as 32bit COBOL or rewrite using Visual Studio. > > Have had some success understanding the components that need to be in > place to amend, pro-compile, compile and link and built a second > working build PC. > Will be trawling though the help files next (there are no manuals). > > It would be great to get in touch with anyone who is using a 16bit > version of Microfocus COBOL, or who has used it relatively recently. > > The Client, an Global Insurer, appreciate the situation is risky - > that's why I'm onsite! If anyone knows of any imminent dangers > presented by staying with 3.2.43 I would especially like to hear from > them. >
From: Donald Tees on 20 Dec 2006 21:28
P. Raulerson wrote: > Yow- tough situation. > I really like Paul's suggestion. Setting the system up on a virtual machine allows you to duplicate it easily, and even scale it, with a minimum cost. Donald |