Comments on: Lawson’s Project Landmark http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2005/05/12/lawsons-project-landmark/ Thought-Provoking Commentary for the Lawson Software Community Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:21:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: David Williams http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2005/05/12/lawsons-project-landmark/#comment-18 David Williams Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:05:37 +0000 http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2005/05/12/lawsons-project-landmark/#comment-18 It's great to see that you are up and running with a BLOG now, and thanks for linking to my BLOG. I've got to say that the annoucement of Project Landmark got me very excited and, unlike yourself, feel that Lawson can come through with it. I say that because of the current Lawson architecture. One, the COBOL/JavaScript code is not easily scalable, so as Lawson grows (which they continue to do) they will have to move away from COBOL and towards some form of object oriented code. Two, Lawson hardly has any dependencies on the database or O/S, which is one of the most difficult aspects of platforming code. Since their index, triggers, relations, business logic, etc. are wrapped up in their code, they have an ideal situation for modularization of code. Also, compared to SAP, Seibel, and PeopleSoft, I would guess that Lawson has a lot less code to port. I think you're right though that making Landmark compatible with the legacy application will be a challenge. There is going to be a lot of time wasted in trying to get Lawson to work alongside it's older brother than it would just developing a whole seperate product. But honestly, I can't see how Lawson would be able to accomplish it any other way. Without being able to take baby steps towards the new software, I believe far less Lawson clients would be willing to make the leap until the technology became proven after a long period of time. It’s great to see that you are up and running with a BLOG now, and thanks for linking to my BLOG. I’ve got to say that the annoucement of Project Landmark got me very excited and, unlike yourself, feel that Lawson can come through with it. I say that because of the current Lawson architecture. One, the COBOL/JavaScript code is not easily scalable, so as Lawson grows (which they continue to do) they will have to move away from COBOL and towards some form of object oriented code. Two, Lawson hardly has any dependencies on the database or O/S, which is one of the most difficult aspects of platforming code. Since their index, triggers, relations, business logic, etc. are wrapped up in their code, they have an ideal situation for modularization of code. Also, compared to SAP, Seibel, and PeopleSoft, I would guess that Lawson has a lot less code to port.

I think you’re right though that making Landmark compatible with the legacy application will be a challenge. There is going to be a lot of time wasted in trying to get Lawson to work alongside it’s older brother than it would just developing a whole seperate product. But honestly, I can’t see how Lawson would be able to accomplish it any other way. Without being able to take baby steps towards the new software, I believe far less Lawson clients would be willing to make the leap until the technology became proven after a long period of time.

]]>