This is a very basic question which I would appreciate anyone's comments.
We have a Progress V9.1 application written to be AppServer aware using the Progress V9 SDO methodology so that all database access is in the SDO objects and the GUI interface is "client side". The application can therefore be deployed as Client/Server or via the AppServer, but I am now unsure if we can re-use the SDO objects if we migrate to OpenEdge and develop a new user interface using .net. I thought initially that SDOs would only communicate with native Progress clients and the AppServer using the _cl.r on the client side but would like confirmation of this.
So can our SDO objects be re-used without major surgery or would we need to re-engineer them into AppServer procedures/classes to allow access by .net or any other "foreign" client using ProxyGen or NetClient?
I'll let someone else familiar with SDO address the question you have asked, but I thought I would mention another possibility. One of the exciting things shown at Exchange was the "Advanced GUI". This allows replacing traditional ABL GUI screens, one screen at a time by .NET screens. All coding is in ABL and there is a visual designer tool that eliminates a great deal of the repetitive coding. This won't be shipping as a product until the second half of 2008, but there are "technology preview" releases available as early as this summer for a limited number of customers who can commit to intensive testing.
Now, if your reason for wanting to go to .NET clients is to eliminate client licenses, this won't interest you. But, if the motivation has to do more with getting the quality of display that one can achieve with .NET, it can be a very interesting option because one can literally replace individual screens. Thus, one can convert the most critical screens first and leave things like routine code table maintenance screens and such for later ... or never. Traditional ABL GUI and .NET can function in the same session, just not on the same window. The Exchange presentation on this was INNOV-5.
Thank you Thomas, I will take a look at the INNOV-5 presentation material and maybe take this up further.