Is it possible to create a mono-like open source project for PowerBuilder?

[Former Member]

It doesn't look like we will get a clear roadmap from SAP on the future of PowerBuilder. It doesn't look like there is any chance of PowerBuilder being Open sourced or handed over to a third party more interested in investing in it.

So... would it be possible to create a mono-like project for PowerBuilder? and would it be beneficial for the PB community?

[Former Member]

There is another interesting fact we can (maybe) learn from the Microsoft world. The girls and boys from Redmond opened the .NET Compiler to "Roslyn". Why? Because they started hating the money they earned? No, it was the presure from the market especially from the open source community (Mono/Xamarin, Cordova, ... ).

best regards

[Former Member]

Hi Manuel;

  There is a recent discussion on LinkedIn about this. Apparently, the Senior VP in charge of PowerBuilder (Dirk Boesmann) has worked out a plan for PowerBuilder with a preferred option for its future. From what I read, what he needs to do now is have this approved by his superior management (of course being SAP - I suspect that this will take a little time in early 2015).

  What has been echoed in the same LinkedIn thread is that EOL'ing PB is not an option in Dirk's recommendations.  Now that being said .. when the PB Community hears something concrete on PB's future is unknown. Hopefully, it will be some time in 2015.

Regards .. Chris

[Former Member]

Thanks for the info Chris.

There's a little bit of hope there.

[Former Member]

Hi,

from time to time I am playing with the approach to move powerbuilder to an open source platform. I concluded that there is no technical reason not to build an open source compiler (maybe a vm).

I see there some "phases".

1) Build a working commandline tool to build PowerBuilder applications.

In the first step I would not build a new compiler from the scratch but extend PBOrca to use Powerbuilder Orca functions. Orcascript is a dead end. I tried this but it is not "big" enough.

My "model" are the tools TypeScript (tsc) or Cordova. It should be possible to write PowerBuilder applications from Notepad and build them with the command line tool. From this point it doesn't matter what IDE is used to build apps.

2) Alternativ IDE

I build a small Visual Studio extension to provide a new Project type to hold *.sru, *.sra, ... yes it is a bit like PB.NET but keep in mind: this is Classic! And yes! My approach does not include working in PBLs, but in plain text files. PBLs are only to compile and build.

When pressing "build" the cli tool of point 1 is called.

3) Leave PowerBuilder 3rdparty code

This is the hardest part but to this the project is already autonomic. The PowerBuilder IDE is not longer needed.

From this it is necessary to build an own compiler (Wowowowo, are you kidding my?). My idea is to use microsoft technology. The .NET compiler opened to the open source community (Roslyn) and there is no show stopper to compile PowerScript to MSIL and to .NET nytecode (Do not compile to C#, like SAP does, it's bull ... it's not a good idea). This is not just a compiler but a whole framework in .NET. That means the PowerBuilder objects should have a "pendant" in .NET. (DataWindow, SQLCA, Pipes, ...).

4) We are free!

Insert new language specifications to PowerScript (We will get interfaces! We will get a foreach keyword!!!).Build new DataWindow source (REST, ODATA). Build predefined DataWindows like plugins to get data from specific datasource (AmazonDW, GoogleDW). It will come with NuGET.

Conclusion

But all these ideas are stopping on one point: Who will use it? Who will contribute? My answers are not optimistic.

best regards

Benjamin

[Former Member]

Hi Benjamin,

I think the question is not who will use it?, but who will finance/contribute to it?

I'm pretty sure if that option was available today many PB Developers would at least give it a try.

Another question would be: Is it possible to do this without the consent of SAP? You mentioned using PBOrca and I believe that is a proprietaty technology, so it can't be used without the SAP's consent .

[Former Member]

Hi Ben;

     My suggestion is to have SAP handover the PB product to Appeon and let them run with it. How bad could that be?

  When you consider what Sybase and SAP have done with PB over the past decade (basically SFA) versus what amazing things Appeon has done with PB over that same time frame AND also in particular over the past few years alone! They get my vote for best potential to move the product forward!  

Regards ... Chris

[Former Member]

Hi Chris,

I think Appeon would be a great choice to move PB forward. However, there are two main concerns:

1. Does Appeon have (and is willing to invest) the money needed to move PB forward.

2. PB needs a strategy to bring new developers to the tool (I think a mono-like open source project is the best way to attract developers to the tool).

[Former Member]

PBOrca = Open Source

OrcaScript = SAP

pborca - A free commandline tool to compile Powerbuilder projects and to manage objects in librarie...

[Former Member]

Hi Ben,

You are right. PBOrca is an Open Source tool, but you still have to have PowerBuilder installed to be able to do builds using PBOrca.

What I was wondering is if an Open Source product can be created to work with existing PB applications without PB at all.

[Former Member]

Phase #4

Some additional notes:

- Creating an open source software based on a closed core isn't really exotic. The SharpDevelop IDE was based on Microsoft .NET SDK before it opens to "Roslyn".

- OpenUI5 is published by SAP and motivates to use it with commercial SAP products

But However: The goal should be to have a complete open source toolchain (phase 4) to build applications.

[Former Member]

IF Appeon were to be so honored with PB's custody & future, I would hope that they ...

1) Immediately create a free EXPRESS version.

2) Make the "Developer" version of PB & Appeon free to all students and consultants.

3) Solicit SAP to invest in PB's R&D for returns like HANA, NetWeaver, etc compliance.

4) Immediately drop PB.Net as there is no ROI on this product (IMHO).

5) Add WCF features to PB Classic.

6) Get in touch with the 542+ Active enhancements on ISUG's PB Enhancement Queue and address many of these suggestions as possible (as these suggestions come from the real PB community).

7) Develop an interactive video library of training material that is available free to everyone.

😎 Do some real marketing (versus Sybase's OTL approach)

9) Develop new software partner relationships to include 3rd party

10)  Develop new sales partner relationships

11) Make ORCA internal to PB & open (free) to everyone to develop utilities / products for PB/Appeon.

12) Incorporate interfaces to enable open source product interaction.

13) Develop more features around J2EE and .NET Interoperability within PB Classic & Appeon.

etc, etc

[Former Member]

Hi Manuel;

   Yes, ORCA is a licensed and proprietary technology. If you develop applications that use ORCA and deploy / sell them - you must acquire a license to be legal! It was always that way back to the Sybase days!

FWIW: I would just enhance PB's LibraryImportXxxxxx( ) methods and then drop ORCA all together - making PB "the" ORCA interface naturally and free to use / explore / develop / innovate / etc.

Regards ... Chris

[former_member190719]

   Yes, ORCA is a licensed and proprietary technology. If you develop applications that use ORCA and deploy / sell them - you must acquire a license to be legal! It was always that way back to the Sybase days!

Here we go again.  Chris, your information is 10 years out of date.

[Former Member]

If you read the entire thread you will see that:

1) PowerGEN for example uses its own API to bypass ORCA and thus the SYSAM License issue.

2) You can not run ORCA on an non PB installed & activated PC.

I rest my case.  

[former_member190719]

 If you develop applications that use ORCA and deploy / sell them - you must acquire a license to be legal!

You said here that you had to get a license for ORCA.  That was the case up to 10 years ago.

You can not run ORCA on an non PB installed & activated PC.

Correct.  But that's not what you said.

I rest my case

Your case as been dismissed for lack of evidence. 

[Former Member]

No .. If you have a license only then you can run your ORCA application on a non-PB installed PC with just the necessary PBL's. Like PowerGEN needs to do on their web server back end. That is why PG developed their own PBL parsers as there is no PB installed there.

You are also missing the main points to the discussion thread ... we can now get rid of ORCA altogether and make it standard set of methods within PowerScipt to perform source code manipulation. That would mean that any PB developer could easily build free to distribute applications that help the PB cause. Also, ORCA requires callbacks that PB developers cannot use unless they buy 3rd party helpers - this is not helping PB's cause to stimulate the IT community.

Note: The only reason ORCA was developed by PowerSoft in the first place was to sell a bridge (aka back door) to CASE Tool vendors to be able to read/write PowerScript from their products. Since most Case Tool vendors have now dropped PB support ... ORCA has outlived its objective/usefulness (like Sysam - a stupid idea). Its things like this that are holding the PB product back from attracting NEW developers. Redesigning ORCA functionality is just one example of how we can make PB more open & attractive to new IT community members.  

[former_member190719]

No .. If you have a license only then you can run your ORCA application on a non-PB installed PC with just the necessary PBL's. 

Huh?  You need a licensed copy of PowerBuilder installed on the machine where you use ORCA.  I'm not sure why that is such a huge issue.

That is why PG developed their own PBL parsers as there is no PB installed there.

You might want to re-read that old thread.  PowerGen requires a PB license installed as well.  Once again, not sure why that's such a huge issue.  If you're a single developer shop, just run it on the machine you have PB installed on. If you're a multi developer shop that needs a seperate build machine, then it's one more license.

[Former Member]

   Think about it some more Bruce .. I'm sure that the light bulb will come on eventually. This is just one small example of how we could change PB to be more open and thus enable new PB Developers (the gist of the thread).    

[former_member190719]

   Think about it some more Bruce .. I'm sure that the light bulb will come on eventually. This is just onesmall example of how we could change PB to be more open and thus enable new PB Developers (the gist of the thread).

Well, I've thought about it for a good long while now.  And requiring people to have a license for a product still doesn't seem to be a huge hurdle.  If they're that easily offended, there are plenty of more grievous quirks of the product that will send them heading for the exits.

We seemed have strayed though.  What does that have to do with this statement, which hasn't been true for 10 years?

 Yes, ORCA is a licensed and proprietary technology. If you develop applications that use ORCA and deploy / sell them - you must acquire a license to be legal! It was always that way back to the Sybase days!

[Former Member]

Gentlemen. Please. This isn't pretty or helpful.

P.