And it's not like IBM doesn't already know that filtering is a problem
with the web admin.  I submitted a requirement at SHARE 18 months ago.
At the following SHARE IBM responded  'thanks for the suggestion, no plans to
implement this'.

Maybe, and I hope, IBM is planning to put a lot of features into the proxy.
The proxy should be able to get a list of nodes or filespaces or volumes
and hold it until a refresh is requested.  It should be able to sort, filter 
etc.
This makes sense to me.  New server levels are a nervous time for me and
maybe for the developers too.  They should be able to send out new proxy
levels much quicker.

Filtering is really necessary.  I have 1500 nodes.  It takes a long time for
my browser to convert a very large html stream into graphics.  It is a pain
to the scroll such a beast.  As you might guess, I don't use the web admin
client much now.

I was briefly in the beta for the TSM 37 mvs server.  I just installed the 
proxy today.
It seemed a little faster when run against a small test server.

IBM/Tivoli, do you have plans to really spiff up the web admin or not?
Inquiring minds want to know!!


--
--------------------------
--------------------------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge, Ma.
bcolwell AT draper DOT com
--------------------------
In <199910081727.NAA70220 AT fserv2.bu DOT edu>, on 10/08/99
In <199910081727.NAA70220 AT fserv2.bu DOT edu>, on 10/08/99
   at 01:27 PM, Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU> said:

>As others noted, the cessation of GUI development portended the demise
>of the GUIs as we knew them, which is a shame.  Going to a web-based
>GUI was obviously a cost-cutting measure whose goal was to help the
>vendor, not the customer.  Web browser interaction is clumsy and slow,
>and is a poor substitute for a serious administration tool.

>What I think would help everyone is if a full-blown admin API were
>provided so that customers could tailor interfacing to their own needs,
>much as the SQL interface provides flexible look-see into the *SM
>database.  For that matter, perhaps the SQL interface could be
>extended.  In any case, the problematic web-based interface just
>doesn't cut it.
>   Richard Sims, BU