The cause appears to be suicide, Sonoma County sheriff’s department said.

Mr. Welnick, whom friends called a gentle and sensitive man, was classically trained and spent hours practicing each day. Although he was a member of the Dead for just five years, until the band folded after the death of guitarist Jerry Garcia, he left an indelible mark on his bandmates.

“He was a good soul, a very sweet guy,” said band spokesman Dennis McNally. “He was also an exceptionally competent keyboardist.”

In a statement posted on its Web site, the band said, “His service to and love for the Grateful Dead were heartfelt and essential. He had a loving soul and a joy in music that we were lucky to share. Our Grateful Dead prayer for the repose of his spirit: May the four winds blow him safely home.”

Mr. Welnick was born in Phoenix, where he started playing piano as a kid. He and friends put together a garage band called the Beans, which became the Tubes when they moved to San Francisco in 1969.

“Thank God for rock ‘n’ roll, because it was a place for all us skinny artistic kids to go when it was 115 degrees outside and we didn’t fit in anywhere else,” said Michael Cotten, a member of the Tubes who designed many of the band’s album covers and elaborate stage shows.

The Tubes toured constantly, and their rowdy antics and energetic shows — which integrated rock music, video technology and outlandish costumes and sets — earned them a devoted following. The band recorded more than a dozen albums and scored hits with “White Punks on Dope” in 1975 and “Talk to Ya Later” in 1981.

“It was an amazing time. We played everywhere, and I don’t think Vince ever missed a show,” said Tubes vocalist Fee Waybill. “But even with all the success, we were still a hippie band from San Francisco. We all lived together, traveled on the same bus, shared everything.”

Throughout his time with the Tubes, Mr. Welnick also played with Todd Rundgren.

Mr. Welnick auditioned for the Dead in 1990 after keyboardist Brent Mydland died of a drug overdose. He was among a handful of musicians who sought the job, and he immediately impressed the band.

“He just magically appeared, and he had the attributes they were looking for,” McNally said.

Mr. Welnick cherished his years with the Dead and thoroughly appreciated both the tradition and hoopla of Deadhead lore and of the band, McNally said.

His soulful, high harmony vocals and classical training were a good fit for the band, and his “moment to shine” came whenever the band played the Who classic “Baba O’Riley,” which begins with an instantly recognizable keyboard passage, McNally said.

It “opens with one of the most amazing riffs in rock ‘n’ roll,” he said. “Vince was great at that.”

Mr. Welnick was devoted to his craft and spent hours a day practicing for most of his life, friends said. He was especially proud of his Boesendorfer piano, which is the piano equivalent to a Stradivarius violin.

“His fingers just flew on that thing,” Cotten said.

Mr. Welnick was close to Garcia, and when the guitarist died of a heart attack in 1995, Mr. Welnick fell into a deep depression.

“He was extremely shattered by Jerry’s death and was very frank about it,” McNally said.

Still, Mr. Welnick continued to perform and write. He formed the band Missing Man Formation and performed with Ratdog, a band featuring Dead guitarist Bob Weir and bassist Rob Wasserman.

One of the highpoints of his post-Dead career came in April 2005 when the Tubes had an impromptu reunion at the Rio Theater in Santa Cruz.

Five of the original members were playing, and Waybill invited other alumni. They all wound up onstage, playing together.

“It was amazing, like walking on air,” said Cotten, who is working on a Tubes documentary.

“The place was packed. People went nuts,” Waybill said. “It was a great, great night. Vince was always up for things like that. He was really excited about playing with the Tubes again.”

And so it was that Mr. Welnick’s death came as such a shock.

“A few of us were just talking about Vince today and about the incredible music he brought us,” Cotten said. “What they call chops, that’s what Vince had. That’s what we want to remember.”

Mr. Welnick’s death is the latest in a string of recent tragedies for the Dead. Three other members of the band’s extended family have died since May 17 — crew member Lawrence “Ram Rod” Shurtliff, drummer Hamza El-Din and road manager Jonathan Riester.

He also is the fourth of the band’s five keyboardists to die, after Ron “Pigpen” McKernan, Keith Godchaux and Mydland.

“It’s not a happy history,” McNally said. “Each one of these guys had a fragility, which isn’t that uncommon for musicians.”

Mr. Welnick is survived by his wife, Lori Welnick.

One is a girl born around 1966. Her name is Tamika Laurence James. I
believe her mother is from Minnesota and Jimi met her in New York. I am a bit fuzzy on the daughter, but I believe this is correct. (The following is taken from court records.)

Filed in New York Surrogates court, re The Estate of James M. Hendrix, on
November 18, 1971, an application was commenced by Al Hendrix, who claimed
to be his distributee, for payment of part of his distributive share of the
estate. A guardian ad litem appeared for an infant and opposed the petition
on the ground that the infant, not father, was sole distributee of the de-
ceased. The Surrogate’s court held that statute providing that the child
is the legitimate child of father so that he and his issue inherit from
father if court, during lifetime of father, has made order of filiation
declaring paternity in proceeding instituted during pregnancy of mother or
within two years from birth of child does not result in discrimination
constituting denial of equal protection of law to an illegitimate child.

And if you understood that, I congratulate you!! HAHAHAHAHA

Seriously though, the decision goes on to state that the court also held
that where deceased had not acknowledged paternity of his allegedly
illegitimate child and no order of filiation declaring paternity had been
instituted during deceased’s lifetime, infant was not a distributee of
deceased and lacked status to oppose application made by deceased’s father.

Basically, what the court said was that since Jimi did not acknowledge
the child was his and no paternity proceeding was held during the pregnancy
or within two years from the birth of the child, the child was not re-
cognized as being an heir of Jimi and thus lacked any standing to oppose
Al’s application to receive proceeds from the Estate.

If I also remember right, Jimi had asked Henry Steingarten to take care
of this and I believe Jimi was going to acknowledge that the child was his.
This was a few weeks before he died. So, the acknowledgment never happened.

Back to the decision; it states that Jimi died without leaving a will.
The decision states that the assets of the estate are in excess of
$400,000. The administrator of the Estate consented to the advance payment
to Al. Certain creditors appeared to oppose the petition as well.

So, Tamika James’ lawyer argued that the advance payment should not be
made as to Al as she is the sole heir, not Al. Her lawyer recognizes that
Tamika’s mother and Jimi were never married and no paternity proceedings
occurred. It is also alleged that Jimi lived with the mother for some time
prior to the child’s birth, but not thereafter. I believe Jimi had just
gone to London before Tamika was born. A lawyer representing the mother
tried for sometime to have Jimi recognize Tamika as his daughter. Most
likely because by this time, Jimi had hit the big time. Jimi had not
recognized paternity before he died.

The court then states there is no proof that Tamika is Jimi’s child and in
order to establish this, a filiation hearing would have to be held and if
she was recognized as Jimi’s child, then she could only succeed if a
statute, known as Children Out-of-Wedlock, formerly known as Bastards, was
declared unconstitutional. I believe it is the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.

So, the court decided to look at the unconstitutionality of the statute.
If the statute was not unconstitutional, then it wouldn’t matter if Tamika
was found to be Jimi’s daughter or not. If, however, the statute was un-
constitutional, then the hearing into the paternity of the child would be
held and if Tamika was found to be Jimi’s daughter, she would be his sole
heir and Al’s petition would fail.

The court cites a number of case law and concludes that the New York
statute requiring a reasonable substantiation of the claim of paternity
does not impose an improper condition and does not result in a discrim-
ination constituting a denial of equal protection of the law to an il-
legitimate. It is held that the infant has not established that she is a
distributee of deceased and, as a consequence, she lacks status to oppose
the petition.

In other words, the statute was not found to be unconstitutional, and
whether Tamika was ever proven to be Jimi’s child or not, she would not be
recognized as his sole heir.

So, that’s what I know about Jimi’s daughter. As for Jimi’s son, here is
some information from Hendrix historian and author Tony Brown:

10/05/43 Eva Sundqvist Born, daughter of opera singer Erik Sundqvist

(died Spring 76) and wife Barbo.

Type ‘0′ blood sample take from Jimi during his period with

the American army.

May 67 Eva Sundqvist student, exits a No10 tram at the Stureplan,

in Stockholm. A young man with indian looks asks her the way

to the Konserthuset. He tells her his name is Jimi Hendrix,

but she can’t relate anything in particular to that name.

Several months later…

Eva is at a record shop on the Swedish west coast and buys

a record with Jimi’s picture on it; thus recognizing this

man as the one she had spoken with in Stockholm in May. And

so, she starts getting into the music.

09/04/67 Two concert appearances at Grona Lund in Stockholm: Prior to

the gigs, Eva sent a letter and a rose and a request for

Jimi to play a certain song from his latest record. And so he

does as wished by “My Eve”.

Jan 68 Goteborg. Hotel Opalen incident: After a quick trial, Jimi

pays 10,000 Swedish crowns to cover the damages.

01/08/68 Two concert appearances at the Konserthuset in Stockholm.

Prior to the gigs, Eva had sent a new letter and another rose.

Jimi dedicates a whole concert to her, and her rose appears on

his guitar. After the gigs, Eva meets Jimi at the stage exit,

and together with some other musicians they go to the

restaurant Gyllene Cirkelen. And then later; to a party at TV

producer Peter Goldman’s place.
11/27/42 Jimi Hendrix is born.

“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
” ”
” “I wrote many letters to him (Jimi) in London, but Jimi ”
” never replied. But when one of his radio programs was ”
” broadcast in Sweden, I heard how he occasionally sang ”
” allusions to our mutual experiences. In another radio ”
” program he dedicated a record to me…” ”
” –Eva Sundqvist ”
” ”
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"

01/09/69 Two concert appearances at the Konserthuset in Stockholm.

More roses. Eva and her mother attend the first show, after

the second show Jimi and Eva go to his hotel, the Hotel

Carlton a female resale Journalist interviews Jimi in his

room. Jimi tells her that he had gotten flowers from a

Swedish girl. When Eva enters the room, Jimi says: “She (Eva)

gave me the flowers. The Journalist leaves at 00.30 and Jimi

and Eva are alone together till 05.30. Then Eva leaves the

hotel: Eva has made love for the first time. James Daniel

Sundqvist (Jimi Hendrix Jr.) is conceived

Thereafter: As soon as Eva learns she is pregnant, she writes to Jimi in

London. She gets no reply.

10/05/69 James Daniel Sundqvist is born in either Allmana BB (Public

Maternity Hospital) or in Soders Jukhuset (South Hospital).

After the birth of JDS, Eva decides not to reveal who the

farther is.

“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
” ”
” “But I wrote his name on a piece of paper and put it in an ”
” envelope, which only was permitted to be opened in case ”
” something happened to me. I didn’t want Jimi to have the ”
” trouble a fatherhood would bring. My child welfare officers, ”
” Agneta Gustavsson and Birgitta Dahlin, demanded finally that ”
” I should tell them who the father was. Otherwise I would not ”
” get any advance maintenance payment.” ”
” –Eva Sundqvist ”
” ”
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"

In that situation and after Hendrix’s death, Eva goes to

lawyer Leif Silbersky to begin paternity proceedings.

09/31/70 Concert appearance at Grona Lund in Stockholm. Eva sees Jimi

at the Tivoli and Jimi asks “How is he (meaning the child).

Eva later states that Jimi was supposed to go home with her

to see his son, but Jimi couldn’t get away from the “girl

fans and the journalists” thus Jimi never sees his son

before Jimi dies…

After Jimi’s death:

Eva is interviewed by an English Sunday paper and she

“revealed” their “secret love” and “Little Jimi”. She tells

the paper about love letters, how they met secretly in

Sweden or in other places in Europe, and that they had

planned that Jimi would come to Stockholm in autumn of 1970

to see his son.

Jan 72 Eva begins paternity case in Swedish district court.

Eva’s lawyer is Leif Silbersky.

At some point:

Leo Branton, lawyer for the Jimi Hendrix estate, asks lawyer

Elin Lavritzen in Stockholm to speak for the Hendrix family

in the Swedish courts. A romantic girl’s imaginations is the

defending side’s Judgement of Eva’s statement that Jimi was

the father of her son.

12/16/75 Swedish district court unanimously establishes James Daniel

Sundqvist as the son of Jimi Hendrix. According to Swedish

law, JDS is thus entitled to Jimi’s whole inheritance.

American laws are different. Leif Silbersky will try to

negotiate a compromise.

Dec 75 Leo Branton states that under American law, JDS has no

chance of paternity or inheritance.

Dec 75 Al Hendrix sends a message to Leif Silbersky saying that JDS

has no chances of paternity or money.

Apr/May 76 Al Hendrix changes his mind and decides to acknowledge the

legitimacy of JDH without American Judicial proof. Al

guarantees a monthly support and wants Eva and son to visit

the Hendrix family in America.

The week prior to 30 Sept 76:

Swedish court of appeals unanimously upholds Dec 75

judgement of the district court. A female Journalist gives

witness to the events of 09 Jan 69, paternity papers are

finally granted. Despite Al Hendrix’s change Of hearten no

money has yet been forth coming, Leif Silbersky to

negotiate, the Hendrix family could demand that the case is

taken to the Swedish supreme court. Eva is afraid to go to

America with her son as she’s certain he will become a

kidnapping target/victim. She is further afraid of going to

any big cites outside Of Sweden.

15 Aug 77 Swedish supreme court rules in favor of Eva Sundqvist;

although among other things, the court acknowledges that

there doesn’t seem to be any (written’:') statement from

Jimi that he has ever even know Eva Sundqvist.

Dec 78 Leif Silbersky, Leo Branton and the Hendrix family agree

that Jimi Jr. and Eva get 4 million Swedish kroner (nearly 1

million, American dollars).

“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
” ”
” “I wrote to Jimi immediately after the birth telling ”
” him he had become a father. I also send him some photos. ”
” After his death, they found the photos of our son. I re- ”
” fused to reveal the father of my child. I didn’t want to ”
” disturb Jimi. I understood that he never had time to write ”
” to me. But he answered in his own way; through his songs. ”
” Jimi, died on September 18, 1970. I didn’t hear the news ”
” until the day after. My mother served me breakfast in bed. ”
” Without her saying a word I knew what had happened. In the ”
” night I had been feeling sad. Many hours I sat and sang our ”
” songs. I knew that something dreadful had happened.”Without ”
” ‘Little Jimi’ I wouldn’t have won ‘the bat tle. It was ”
” several months before I could listen to a song. I’ll never ”
” meet anyone like Jimi again. On the other hand, I don’t know ”
” if we could have lived together. But we planned that ‘Little ”
” Jimi’ and I would move over to him in London or New York. ”
” Perhaps love is a bit unreal. I was 10 years older than the ”
” usual fans. I didn’t like Jimi because he was famous and ”
” rich. If we get any money, I will donate it to a scholarship ”
” fund. ‘Little Jimi’ and I manage on my salary. But one thing ”
” no one can take away from me: the memory of the times we ”
” were together, even if it was just a couple Of hours.” ”
” –Eva Sundqvist ”
” ”
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"

Eva Sundqvist has a Bachelor of Arts degree. When Jimi
Jr was younger, Eva worked at a data firm. She currently
works at home (to be closer to Jimi Jr,) with ‘market
research’.
–Tony Brown

Who inherits?

My understanding, which is certainly not confirmed, is that Al is leaving
everything to Janie. As for Leon, like Jimi’s kids, and Lucille, he is out
in the cold. I do believe Leon took the $1 million offered to him by Alan
Douglas and Leo Branton. It might be too late now for Leon to get anything.
If Al did leave everything to Janie in his Will, then he would have to draw
up a new one if for some strange reason he doesn’t want Janie to get it
all. I should point out, from all accounts, Al loves Janie very much, and
he is not going to look at her the way some do. To Al, Janie is his loving
daughter, and with that in mind, there is no reason for him not to leave
her everything.

In closing, I think its pretty ironic that Jimi’s sister by marriage runs
the show, yet Jimi’s flesh and blood children are out in the cold. I don’t
believe either child is recognized by the family, but I could be wrong.
Pretty sad if you ask me. Just two more people in the long line of those
wronged, in my opinion, by the current administration.

–Vic Lewin

After using Ruby and Rails, believe me when I tell you, it has compelling reasons to be considered for your next web application and the capabilities to shake up web development as a whole.

While .NET and Java/J2EE have the biggest mind share among development platforms, in part due to their corporate marketing power and established business networks, to date few platforms have provided compelling reasons to learn them if you are a .NET or Java/J2EE practicioner.

Even though a series of platforms have remained vibrant, Perl among the early leaders and PHP along with Python — strong communities, commercial backers and all — they still seem to be lacking the right features, tools or libraries needed to get them to compete head-to-head with the main contenders in creating web enabled apps.

Don’t get me wrong, I have seen some pretty impressive applications written in Perl, PHP and Python, but try finding hard evidence to support the fact that these platforms are easier, faster or more powerful to develop web applications than Java/J2EE and .NET, and you will surely face an uphill battle — in all fairness, Perl, PHP and Python gurus will surely take the opposing view, but that’s another story.

PHP introduced a true object model only until its 5.0 version — late 2004 — which would surely be seen as a step back for anyone working with Java since this is a cornerstone to the language. Python might be a powerful scripting language with a comprehensive application server like Zope, and Perl a swiss knife as a programming language, but they clearly lack the robust libraries to accelerate the creation of applications at the rate they are expected in todays market.

Enter Ruby and Rails.

While Ruby the language has powerful idioms similar to Perl and Python — its own creator Y. Matsumoto states that Ruby’s roots are based on these two languages — it is the Rails framework that shines for creating web based applications.

Ruby on Rails takes a very simplistic yet powerful approach rooted in common software patterns that ease system scalability — in Rail’s case — two patterns which are paramount to web development : MVC (”Model View Controller”) and Data Access Object/Relational Mapping.

Although patterns are nothing new to web development platforms, they are something that needs to be addressed throughout the development cycle, a process that can be time consuming and often painful. Ruby on Rails makes thinking in patterns an afterthought, since the use of patterns is inherent in your coding.

Java/J2EE users will surely be familiar with the MVC (”Model View Controller”) pattern, which can be enforced in your application through the use of frameworks like Struts or Webwork, a process which takes a considerable amount of time to apply — in Struts , think Action classes for every other request and the corresponding tinkering with XML files — and although newer standards like JSF aim to take the pain out of this process, they still seem to fall short at least compared to Ruby on Rails. .NET in the MVC realm makes use of Web-Controls which represent a compelling solution ( competing to Java-JSF ), but in the capabilities of a central controller, there seems to be no established framework other than creating your own “code-behind” custom made controller.

With Ruby on Rails, you kick off development with a controller and your applications grow from there. At its most basic level, the creation of a controller automatically generates four standard views and operations ( Create, Edit, Update, Delete ) that directly plug in to your database schema. Yes, thats HTML, business logic and SQL code in one step!.

This Ruby on Rails “magic” is achieved extracting your data as it’s represented in your data model, and propagating it straight out to the corresponding views. Which takes us on to the O/R mapping capabilites built into Rails.

If you have followed J2EE development for a while you will realize it has taken : Three distinct EJB versions, influence from vendors like Top-Link, and open source developments like Hibernate and Spring, for O/R mapping to finally make its formal debut in J2EE standards — as EJB 3.0 — which is still in its infancy. Ruby on Rails goes to great lenghts to provide O/R mapping with its standard distribution, and does so in excellent fashion.

Obviously this straightforward one step functionality — for creating HTML, business logic and SQL in one step — has its tradeoffs, everything has to follow a common naming convention; when dealing for example with a Motorcycle object, everthing from the view to the database table has to be named in the same fashion.

But even then, once you start drilling down into the generated Rails code, you will observe very straightforward syntax — due in great part to Ruby — that is easily customizable and directly in sync with software design patterns.

And while you obviously wont get advanced enterprise features like two phase commits out of the box from Rails, if you will be building an application from scratch where you have the ability to define your own data model, even though Rails is still in its infancy — 0.13 version — it has enough features to speed up your development time, making it a strong contender for developing web applications.

Ruby on Rails is a relatively new Web application framework built on the Ruby language. It is billed as an alternative to existing enterprise frameworks, and its goal, in a nutshell, is to make your life — or at least the Web development aspects of it — easier. In this article, Aaron Rustad compares and contrasts some of the key architectural features of Rails and traditional J2EE frameworks.

Ruby on Rails is a Web application framework that aims to provide an easy path to application development. In fact, the framework’s proponents claim that Ruby on Rails developers can be up to ten times more productive than they would be when using traditional J2EE frameworks. (Read the article titled “Rolling with Ruby on Rails” for more on this claim; see Resources). While this statement has been the source of considerable debate in the Rails and J2EE communities, little has actually been said about how Rails and J2EE architectures compare. This article will contrast the Rails framework against a typical J2EE implementation using common open source tools that are regularly found in enterprise applications.
What is Ruby on Rails?

To find a simple, one-sentence description of Rails, you need look no further than the project’s home page:
Rails is a full-stack, open-source Web framework in Ruby for writing real-world applications with joy and less code than most frameworks spend doing XML sit-ups.
Although I can’t guarantee that the framework will deliver on its promise of joy, the statement does a good job of summing up Rails’ qualities. The full stack consists of a Web server, a framework for processing HTTP requests and responses, and a framework for easily persisting data to a relational database. Rails strives for development ease by eliminating complicated XML configuration files and using the very dynamic nature of the Ruby language to help minimize much of the repeating code often found in static typed languages.
Rails and a typical J2EE Web stack
Figure 1 compares the Rails stack to a typical J2EE Web stack comprised of the Tomcat servlet container, the Struts Web application framework, and the Hibernate persistence framework.

Figure 1. Comparison of Rails and J2EE stacks

As you can see, the fundamental difference between the Rails stack and the components that make up a common J2EE-based Web application is small. Both have a container in which the application code will execute; an MVC framework that helps to separate the application’s model, view, and control; and a mechanism to persist data.

The MVC framework
Model-View-Controller (MVC) is a design pattern that has been around for quite some time. It has its origins in Smalltalk; today, virtually all GUI frameworks, including Web and rich clients, are based on it. MVC has three parts: the model, which is responsible for the business logic, including application state and the actions to be performed upon that state; the view, which is used to render and present the model to the user (in the case of Web applications, the view is generally rendered as HTML); and the controller, which defines application behavior. For a more detailed explanation of the MVC pattern, check Resources.
The front controller
Struts’ ActionServlet and Rails’ DispatchServlet are both examples of the Front Controller pattern; as such, they both provide the same functionality. They accept HTTP requests, parse the URL, and forward processing of the request to an appropriate action. In the case of Struts, an action is a class that extends Action; for Rails, it is a class that extends ActionController. The main difference between the two front controllers is how they determine the action that processes a particular request.
With Struts, a developer needs to externalize the mappings of specific requests to Action classes in an XML configuration file. When the ActionServlet is first loaded, it parses this file and prepares to accept requests. By convention, HTTP requests that end in .do get redirected to ActionServlet for dispatching to the appropriate Action. The XML in Figure 2 is a typical mapping. It tells the ActionServlet to forward a request called deleteOrder.do to controllers.order.DeleteOrderAction for further processing.
Rails takes a different approach. Instead of relying upon a configuration file to map requests to actions, it discovers the appropriate action based on the URL requested. As you can see in Figure 2, the URL http://localhost/order/delete/4 indicates for Rails to invoke the delete method on an instance of OrderController and make 4 available as an instance variable. Rails is smart enough to know that /order maps to a controller class defined in a file named order_controller.rb. If there is a find method defined in the controller, that method can be invoked by simply replacing delete with find in the URL.

Figure 2. URL mappings in Rails and Struts

The action and the model
In both Rails and Struts, the action acts as a bridge between the front controller and the model. The developer provides an implementation of an action in order to provide application-specific processing of a request. The front controller is responsible for accepting the request and passing it off to a specific action. Figure 3 illustrates a basic action hierarchy for Rails and Struts.

Figure 3. Rails and Struts action hierarchy

Are actions models or controllers?
Action and ActionController are technically part of the controller in the MVC pattern, as they respond to events initiated by the client. However, in small applications, developers often code domain or business logic inside these classes, and as a result they can be considered part of the model as well in those cases. Best practices suggest that you should abstract domain logic away from the controller and placed in its own domain-specific classes.
Struts requires that the developer extend Action and override execute() in order to process the request. Generally, each Action class provides a very specific unit of work. Figure 3 illustrates three specific actions: SaveOrderAction, DeleteOrderAction, and ListOrdersAction. The front controller calls the execute() method and passes it a number of useful objects, including the HTTP request and response objects. ActionForm is a class that conveniently transfers and validates form-related input to and from the view, and ActionMapping contains the configuration information for the mapping as described in the XML in Figure 2.
The execute() method returns an ActionForward object that Struts uses to determine the component that continues processing the request. Generally, this component is a JSP, but ActionForward can also point in other actions. Developers must be aware that Struts will create a single instance of the Action and allow multiple threads to invoke execute(). This allows for faster request processing, as the framework is not continually creating new Action instances to handle each request. But because a single object is shared between multiple threads, you must observe proper threading considerations, as other threads are likely to pummel instance variables that hold state in the action.
In Rails, you must extend ActionController::Base for the model to participate in the processing of a request. Rails doesn’t pool the instance of the ActionController; instead, it creates a new instance for each request. While this might have a negative impact on performance, it makes development easier. Developers need not be concerned with the threading issues that are present in Struts, and as a result, the session, request, header, and parameters are all accessible as instance members of the ActionController. ActionControllers are also a logical place to group all processing of specific domain logic. While Struts Action classes are fine-grained and provide very specific units of work, Rails ActionControllers are coarse-grained and model discreet units of work as methods.
Listing 1 and Listing 2 illustrate a typical Struts action and a typical Rails action, respectively.
Table 1 offers a comparison of the logic flow of the two methods, and illustrates what happens on specific lines in Listings 1 and 2. When you examine the execute() method of DeleteOrderAction and the delete method of OrderController, you can see that they are basically the same.

Table 1. execute() and delete methods compared
Step Struts Rails
Framework calls action Line 03: execute() Line 07: delete
ID retrieved from request Lines 06-07: Pulled from request object Line 08: Pulled from an instance hash of all parameters
Order record is deleted from database Lines 09, 14-24: delete() method called, deleting the record using Hibernate Line 09: Deletes the record using ActiveRecord
Redirecting to list the remaining orders Line 11: The ActionMapping object is used to look up the next component to forward processing to. The XML mapping in Figure 2 shows that success maps to /listOrders, which is another Action that is responsible for looking up the remaining orders and presenting them as a JSP. Line 10: The redirect_to method is called with a hash of the next action to invoke; in this case, it simply calls the list method of the same controller.

Back to top

The persistence frameworks
A persistence framework is used to move data to and from the database in the application layer. Both Hibernate and Rails persistence frameworks can be classified as object/relational mapping (ORM) tools, meaning that they take an object view of the data and map it to tables in a relational database. Both frameworks aim to reduce the development time associated with working with relational databases. However, Figure 4 illustrates some fundamental differences in how each is designed and configured.

Figure 4. Comparison of Active Record and Hibernate persistence frameworks

Hibernate
Hibernate is based on the Data Mapper pattern, where a specific mapper class, the Session, is responsible for persisting and retrieving data to and from the database. Hibernate can persist any Java object as long as it conforms to JavaBean specifications. XML mapping files describe how a class maps to a particular table in the database, along with any relationships that the class has with other classes.
Listing 3 shows an example of a Hibernate mapping file. The class tag maps the Order object to the ORDERS table and has a number of sub tags that describe its properties, the ID and the order name, and a one-to-many relationship to models.Item. Listing 4 shows the Order class itself.

Listing 3. Order.hbm.xml

…
01
02 03 dynamic-update="true" dynamic-insert="false"
04 discriminator-value="null">
05
06 07 unsaved-value="null">
08
09
10
11 12 cascade="none" sort="unsorted">
13
14
15
16
17
18 update="true" insert="true"
19 access="property" column="name"/>
20
21

Listing 4. Order.java

01 public class Order {
02 private Set items;
03 private String name;
04 private Long id;
05
06 public Long getId() { return id;}
07
08 public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id;}
09
10 public Set getItems() { return items;}
11
12 public void setItems(Set items) { this.items = items; }
13
14 public String getName() { return name; }
15
16 public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; }
17 }

Active Record

Reflection and metaprogramming
Reflection is succinctly defined in Wikipedia (see Resources) as “the ability of a program to examine and possibly modify its high-level structure at runtime.” The same source defines metaprogramming as “the writing of programs that write or manipulate other programs (or themselves) as their data or that do part of the work that is otherwise done at runtime during compile time.”
The following code implements reflection:
01 obj = “some_string”
02 if obj.respond_to?(’length’):
03 puts “obj length = #{obj.length}”
03 end
>> obj length = 5

And this code implements metaprogramming:
01 class SomeClass
02 end
03 newMethod = %q{def msg() puts “A message!” end}
04 SomeClass.class_eval(newMethod)
05 aClass = SomeClass.new
06 aClass.msg
>> A message!

Rails’ ORM framework is called Active Record and is based upon the design pattern of the same name. Martin Fowler describes an Active Record as “an object that wraps a row in a database table or view, encapsulates the database access, and adds domain logic on that data.” In Rails, each domain object extends ActiveRecord::Base, which provides the CRUD operations.
Active Record doesn’t require a mapping file, as Hibernate does; in fact, a developer working with Active Record doesn’t need to code getters or setters, or even the properties of the class. Through some nifty lexical analysis, Active Record is able to determine that the Order class will map to the ORDERS table in the database. Using a combination of Ruby reflection and metaprogramming, the columns of the table become properties of the object. Accessors and mutators are also added.
Listing 5 shows the completed code for the Order class. The one line of code in the class body of Order defines its relationship to the Item object. has_many is a static method call for which the symbol :items is a parameter. ActiveRecord uses :items to discover the Item domain object and in turn maps the Item object back to the ITEMS table in the database.

Listing 5. order.rb

01 class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
02 has_many :items
03 end

The Order class as coded in Listing 5 provides dozens of class and instance methods at runtime. Table 2 offers a partial list of operations and attributes available on Order:

Table 2. Attributes and operations available on Order
Class methods Instance methods Attributes
find(*args)
find_by_sql(sql)
exists?(id)
create(attributes)
update(id, attributes)
update_all(updates, conditions
delete(id)
delete_all(conditions)
…
add_items
build_to_items
create_in_items
find_all_in_items
find_in_items
has_items?
items
items=
items_count
remove_items
id
name

Back to top

In summary
While Ruby on Rails is a very new and exciting framework that has generated considerable interest in the Web development community, the core architecture follows the basic patterns found in J2EE. It’s the philosophical approach to development of Web applications that sets the two frameworks apart. Rails prefers explicit code instead of configuration files, and the dynamic nature of the Ruby language generates much of the plumbing code at runtime. Most of the Rails framework has been created as a single project and application development benefits from a set of homogeneous components. In contrast, the typical J2EE stack tends to be built from best-of-breed components that are usually developed independently of one another, and XML is often used for configuration and gluing the components together.
So, should you consider Rails for your next Web application? Well, why shouldn’t you? It’s a well-written stack of components that work well with each other and are based upon industry accepted enterprise patterns. The Ruby language allows for fast development and adds to the framework by generating much of the application plumbing. Those who are familiar with MVC and ORM frameworks available in the Java world will have no difficulty wrapping their minds around Rails.
Should you dispense with J2EE altogether in favor of Rails? Absolutely not. J2EE is a well-established standard with several solid implementations and, most importantly, is a proven technology. But I do suggest that you download a copy of Rails and start hacking away. Many of the tutorials that are available are introductory and will get you up and running in no time. Again, I don’t guaranteeing that you’ll experience joy as a result of working with Rails, but I do bet you’ll find contentment.

Back to top

Resources
Check out the Ruby on Rails Web site.

A few years ago, not many people were aware of Rowayton’s association with the creation of the business computer.

Some Rowayton old timers remembered that Jim Rand’s company had bought the big Farrell mansion after the war and he’d brought in that big yacht of his and parked it in the Five Mile River. And hadn’t he hired those famous generals — Groves and MacArthur — to head up things at the Rand company?

The Barn (as the former Farrell stables came to be known) was full of engineers designing office machines. Or so people thought.

In point of fact, back in 1947-1951 more than two dozen technicians were working in the converted facilities The Barn had been remodeled to contain. They were putting in 12-hour shifts, in two competing teams to develop the first electronic computer designed for the business market. The competing team device was a favorite of Darien’s Gen. Leslie Groves; he had used the same strategy when he was in charge of the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb.

Among those original engineers working on the prototype of a business computer known as the 409 were John Carmichael, Jim Marin, Jake Randmer, Gordon Chamberlain, Les Henchcliffe and Bill Wenning. Unfamiliar names perhaps, but not if you had attended last Sunday’s Rowayton Historical Society meeting at which these six pioneers were honored when they assembled to commemorate the establishment of their research 50 years ago at The Barn, now the Rowayton Library on one side and the Community Center on the other.

Speaking to the more than 80 people who showed up to meet these original members of the Rand engineering teams, Erik Rambusch, former president of the Rowayton Historical Society, told how he had discovered there was little or no written history of Rowayton’s association with the creation of the first computer specifically designed for business application.

In the past few years, he has been tracking down original engineers involved in the project and getting their memories incorporated into tangible, readable communicable form.

Bill Wenning, who worked on all three computers — the 409, the Univac 60/120 and the 1004 — said there had been, indeed, very few Rand records predating 1955, and that they are trying, through meetings such as these, to get the records straight. “We’re writing history,” he pointed out, “and you are participating in that.”

In response to Ted Hubbell’s question about the actual size of the 409, Wenning’s reply brought down the house: “Like a small freight car, actually.” It was, he stated seriously, very large. Its rough dimensions were about 8 feet long, 2 feet thick and 5 1/2 feet tall. It delivered 8,000 watts, which could heat almost this whole facility. Huge copper cables supplied the current. It was a monster but in its time a very successful product. Univac 60/120 was an upgraded version, for customers with slightly different needs than we had forecast at the beginning of development.”

Pictures of the original 60/120 will eventually be framed and put in the Rowayton Library.

Asked how the power of today’s laptops compare to what these engineers built 50 years ago, Ron Smith, director System Tools Development of Unisys, referred to the size and limitations of radios in the old days to present-day transistor radios. “Today’s personal computers are about a million times faster and a thousand times cheaper …”

When Bill Wenning pointed out: “The important significance is that computers didn’t exist in those days,” it drew the audience’s supportive and generous applause.

“And the stuff that was on the radio was worth listening to!” one audience member added aloud.

Asked about clients, Gordon Chamberlain remembered significantly that “The IRS was one of our first — our very first client. We took the 409 computer down to Baltimore in a moving van, down the New Jersey Turnpike that wasn’t officially opened yet. We had a police escort all the way. We had this monster and when we got it there, it wouldn’t fit in the building! They had to take a wall out of the building to get it in …”

One member of the audience asked if any of them in their wildest dreams had envisioned “where you were going and where you would come to since then?”

Jake Randmer responded that when they started using transistors in the 50s, top planners in the industry did not quite anticipate that the miniaturization of the solid state circuitry would go so far. “Now people who do the further planning and prediction are saying that even the present computers are too large, that we’ll really get to almost using single atoms instead of talking about maybe fractions of a millimeter or that just a couple of atoms will do just the storage.

So in 50 years of computers, begun and still being discussed in Rowayton, bigger has become smaller and smaller even more so. But it’s history, thanks to men like these, can only grow larger.

Contact: Erik Rambusch, rambusch@sprynet.com

From 1943 until 1964 “the Barn” [actually a group of buildings] was used as a site for research by the Remington Rand Corporation.

In the late 1940’s Jim Rand pursued his interest in computer development along three avenues simultaneously: large bureaucratic/governmental computers; large scientific computers; and small business computers to replace what were then called tabulators.

Rand pursued the first two through acquisition: Eckert-Mauchley Computer Corporation was acquired for bureaucratic applications and Engineering Research Associates in St. Paul, Minn. was bought to support scientific computer development.

Jim Rand attempted to develop the business computer through his own company research, all of which, at least initially, was carried out in “the Barn” of the Rockledge Estate, Rowayton Ct. It included:

The development of the Remington Rand 409 under the direction of Crossman in the late 1940’s which evolved into the Univac 60 and 120.

The Brustman effort which might have produced a more sophisticated computer but was discontinued due to lack of funds and possible overlap with research acquired through Rand’s acquisition of E-M and ERA.

A third effort under the direction of Wenning in the 60’s which resulted in the Univac 1004.

BACKGROUND

Jim Rand hired patent holders in order to accelerate the process of developing a concept that might be commercially successfully. After the war Arthur Draper was put in charge of interviewing inventors for Remington Rand.

According to Porter Draper who now lives in the Wilson Point section of Norwalk, his father Arthur was an inventor and was hired by Jim Rand in 1940. Arthur had discovered wood laminates and a process for epoxy veneers which proved useful for radar covers during W.W. II. As time went on this market became dominated by Corning who pushed the use of fiberglass for similar application. However the technology has come full circle as carbon fibers and epoxies are now used for the Stealth Bomber.

Even though a Naval Reserve officer, Arthur was never called up during the war since his work for Rand contributed directly to the war effort. Like Rand, Draper lived in Darien, one town west of the Rowayton section of Norwalk. Jim lived on Mansfield Avenue, up on a hill overlooking a man-made lake. He kept his two boats in the Five Mile River estuary, across from Rowayton’s Pinkney Park. His captain lived in the house on the Darien side that has just been rebuilt as a mansion.

As Arthur tells it, all Rand’s top executives advised their boss against investing in the development of electronic computers. At IBM the opposite was true, the senior management team saw a future in computers, but Watson was against it. In short, it would be Rand that would force Watson into computers.

ROCKLEDGE

In 1943 Jim Rand had bought the Farrell’s Rockledge Estate in Rowayton for his company headquarters. James Augustus Farrell (1863 - 1943) had started to work at the age of 15 in a wire mill and in 1913 became president of U.S. Steel. He also founded the Farrell Steamship Lines which carried the iron ore for U.S. Steel. Like Rand, Farrell’s business associate Andrew Carnegie, the founder of U.S. Steel, lived in Darien. The main house on the east side of Rowayton’s Highland Avenue became the headquarters building for Rand’s company. In 1964 the mansion and 15.5 acres were bought by the Thomas School for girls. It is now the eastern headquarters of Hewitt Associates, LLC.

Today’s 33 Highland Avenue was “the Barn” directly across the street from the main house of the Farrell estate. It was here that Rand’s secret business computer research was temporarily housed. In 1964, the Sixth Taxing District of Norwalk, or Rowayton, bought this building and the surrounding farm lands for its Community Center and Library.

Originally Jim Rand had wanted to build his company’s R&D facility on this latter site. Joe Kilbourn, a lawyer and long-time Rowayton resident explains that Bill Kent, a major political leader in Norwalk at that time and Chairman of the A.C. Bohack Grocery chain, successfully saw to it that Rand’s R&D facility was built in South Norwalk, across the street form Nash Engineering on Wilson Avenue. Eventually this facility became the site of Norwalk’s Technical College.

Joe Cheh had been the grounds keeper for the Farrells. When Jim Rand bought Rockledge he retained Joe, who would some years later be maintaining 33 Highland as Rowayton’s Community Center. Donald’s Cheh, Joe’s son visited the stables when the Farrells still owned them. He remembers feeding the animals and playing in the root cellar in the back. Though RR’s security during the late 40s was very tight, Don recalls scientists doing vacuum tube research in dark rooms in the stables, now the reading rooms of Rowayton’s library.

Tom Sharp joined Remington Rand in 1946 as Chief Chemist. At that time the Tech Center on Wilson Avenue in South Norwalk was still under construction. The floors were not finished, and because of a telephone strike, there was one telephone line for the entire building.

Tom recalls that the research at 33 Highland involved vacuum tube studies in conjunction with the effort underway at E-M, as well as the building of “card feeders, mechanical printers and keyboards.”

ECKERT-MAUCHLY

In 1947 Arthur Draper moved his family to Philadelphia to work with Eckert and Mauchly to learn all he could about their operation.

J. Presper Eckert was an engineering student who understood the business implications of what they were doing. John William Mauchley was a Ph.D., theoretical, professorial and according to Arthur, hard to get along with. They had developed the prototype to the Univac at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1940s while doing work for the Army’s Ordnance Department. It was known as the Eniac (Electronic Numeric Inergrator and Computer).

In 1946 they formed the Electronic Controls Company, later renamed Eckert-Mauchley Computer Cooperation in 1948, and built the Univac I and II off campus at their 24/25th and Market Streets facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This facility grew over time and in the late 1950’s was relocated to Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.

Arthur Porter became convinced that the E-M’s computer was biggest idea RR could ever hope to find and recommended the corporation invest in or acquire the Philadelphia computer operation. Draper told E-M that when they needed more money, Rand was ready to make an investment.

E-M was owned in part by American Totalizer, a manufacturer of race track calculating machinery for paramutuals and the like. The venture capital was being supplied by a brilliant engineer who died flying his own airplane in 1949.

Draper immediately arranged for Rand to meet with Mr. Munn, President of American Totalizer. The details of the acquisition of E-M were worked out on the back of an envelope, effective February 1950. The first Univac was delivered to the United States Census Bureau the following year.

The new operation reported to Allan Ross, Executive VP who in turn reported to General Leslie Grove, RR’s President at that time. Grove had headed the Los Alimos activities of the Manhattan Project and like Rand, was a Darien resident. Eckert became a company Vice President and stayed until he retired. Mauchly left to become a consultant.

Draper clearly remembers the day when the senior executives at Rockledge were informed by Grove of the Eckert-Mauchly acquistion, later known as the Univac Division.

FIRST ROWAYTON RESEARCH EFFORT

Bill Wenning went to work for Remington Rand in December 1948. (He would later married Joe Cheh’s niece.) Bill joined a 7 / 8 man team including two engineers, one mechanical and one electrical — himself. The team was directed by Mr. Crossman. He was an adding machine expert and had convinced Jim Rand of his ideas for marring this earlier technology with electronics.

For the next three years Bill worked in Rowayton as part of Crossman’s team eventually developing the Remington Rand 409 which in turn evolved into the Univac 60/120. Jake Randmer was also a member of this team. He made the neon diodes for the prototype machines.

According to Bill, 409 was first assembled in today’s Adult Library directly beneath what was to become his uncle’s and aunt’s-in-laws apartment. Don Cheh and his sister Elaine tell how their father built the “foundation for the Univac.” More precisely, Joe built or reinforced the foundation under the room where the 409, the progenitor of the Univac business computers was being assembled.

In 1951/2 the 409 group was moved to the completed Tech Center on Wilson Avenue and reorganized into two teams. The team upstairs focused on commercial design and documentation issues.

Bill Wenning was assigned to head the team on the ground floor which continued to solve the applied research and production issues associated with the 409. For example, it used radio vacuum tubes which burned out after three hours. Their original production targets were 100 units, to be manufactured at the rate of one a month, when in fact the demand turned out to be 3 to 4 a week.

This work continued in the South Norwalk Tech Center until the 409 had evolved to the Univac 60 and 120. The Tech Center group took the new Univacs through their early market phases until line responsibility for them could be safely turned over to the operations in Herkimer, NY in 1954/55. The day that transfer officially took place RR’s new President, General Douglas Mac Arthur, was present and many photographs were taken.

The 60 and 120 were called Univac because by then that was the name of RR’s computer division and Univac had an excellent reputation. In 1952, on the night of presidential election, a Univac had been used by the CBS television network to forecast the election’s outcome. The computer predicted a landslide for General Eisenhower. This prediction was so startling it is was not announced for fear the computer was wrong.

Later that evening, when it was obvious that Ike had captured the White House, the commentators explained the Univac had predicted the results several hours earlier, but they had waited until it had been confirmed by the more traditional methods.

The Univac 60 and 120 were very successful business computers, not next-step versions of the earlier Univac I and II. The 60 and 120 were punch card calculators designed for applications such as payroll administration. They were named for the number of steps or calculations each could handle. Both input and output were punchcards. Each unit was about the size of a refrigerator and only needed a small fan to cool it, where as the Univac I required 12 tons of refrigeration. The 120 was slightly larger than the 60.

SECOND ROWAYTON RESEARCH EFFORT

According to Jacob A. Randmer another research effort was conducted at the barn that did not make it to market.

“When I joined end of ‘49 Brustman had a large group working in parallel with Crosman. Brustman’s group was isolated from the (South) Norwalk lab in the annex (called ‘Barn’) of the Farrell estate which was then known as Rockledge and was Rand’s local headquarters where Al Ross had his office. As expenses and technical difficulties in Brustman’s group mounted, management had to scrap one of the efforts and it chose to terminate Brustman’s effort, because it was further from completion and probably more expansive than Crossman’s project.”

“It is also possible that both efforts were reviewed by people from Philadelphia like Presper Eckert (Univac) and Lukoff and others and it was deemed the Crossman machine would fit better with developments at Univac which was much further advanced in computer technology than the (South) Norwalk (lab).” (Jacob Randmer letter to Colin Burke, April 5, 1992)

THIRD ROWAYTON RESEARCH EFFORT

A few years later Bill Wenning and his team regrouped on another computer project — the Univac 1004. But as with the 409, and the Univac 60 and 120, it was too little, too late. By then IBM dominated the computer market, a situation that was to continue until the development of smaller computers in the late 1980s.

By BILL RYAN
The New York Times
Sunday, March 29, 1998Copyright © 1998 The New York Times Co.
Reprinted by Permission

In 1948, 20-year-old William B. Werming of Stamford, fresh out of a two-year technical college in New York City, was looking for a job. An acquaintance suggested he try Remington Rand.

“I had never even heard of Remington Rand,” Mr. Wenning says today. But in post-World War II America, with an economy adjusting to peacetime and millions of ex-G.I.’s also out looking for jobs, any suggestion was appreciated. Just before Christmas he showed up at Remington Rand’s research center in Norwalk and, in a manner of speaking, walked into a new frontier: the computer.

The man who hired young Mr. Wenning was Loring P. Crosman, whom he admired then and still, not only for his business vision but also because he was a good guy, quiet-spoken, and appreciative of his workers.

“He hired me and had me come in right away so I could get holiday pay,” Mr. Wenning says. You don’t forget a gesture like that, even after close to 50 years.

In the middle of World War II, Mr. Crosman had interested James Rand, the chairman of Remington Rand, in a new venture. The company, then situated in Brooklyn, N.Y., was a major manufacturer of office furniture, machines and systems and Mr. Crosman saw the future in an electronic machine that could add, subtract, multiply and perform other functions much faster than digital calculators. Such a marvel didn’t even have a name—but computer, or computer machine; would do.

Remington Rand had to wait until the end of the war to get into such a new venture. It also had to wait until Mr. Rand, who lived in Darien, got around to establishing a new corporate headquarters in Connecticut.

He had become enamoured of an splendid property in the Rowayton section of Norwalk. It was the James A. Farrell estate, known as Rockledge, a huge fieldstone mansion set well back on one side of Highland Avenue with an equally impressive Tudor building on the other side of Highland. The latter was a stable.

Mr. Farrell, who went to work in a factory at 15, had risen in Horatio Alger fashion to become president of U.S. Steel, and of his own steamship line. As such, he had enough money in the pre-World War I era to build a home, and stable, to rival the showy mansions and stables in Newport, or anywhere else. He needed a staff of eight to keep the place comfortable. .

Both Mr. Farrell and his wife died. in the early 1940’s and Mr. Rand purchased Rockledge, the mansion to become corporate headquarters, the stable to be used for research. And with the end of the war, the company could settle down for some research into new prospects.

When Bill Wenning arrived in late 1948, he reported to Mr. Crosman in the old Rockledge stables, joining eight other men, all older than he, who had dubbed their workplace “the barn.”

Life in the barn had a certain air about it, Mr. Wenning reflects today. “One guy said he could still smell manure there but I never did.” Rather, the air was one of a certain excitement, a feeling that something new was happening. It was an adventure. At the same time, he said, nobody in the group was really aware of the ramifications of what they were doing.

Indeed Remington Rand itself might not have been fully attuned to the potential. There was no security at the barn in the early years. “When we got through for the day we just shut the door,” Mr. Wenning says. Sometimes, he adds, when the group opened up on Monday mornings, it was obvious that the caretaker’s kids had been playing in the barn.

The workers at the barn did just that, work, Mr. Wenning says, and improvised, and enjoyed it all. “In 1950 to 1951 we worked 12-hour shifts and we didn’t get paid for that. We did it because we wanted to.”

While the work was going on, changes were piling on changes in the postwar business world as companies scrambled for shares of the new peacetime market, at home and abroad. At Remington Rand, even the name changed. It became Sperry Rand after a merger with the Sperry Corporation. And James Rand had added some important men to the top echelon of the corporation—Gen. Leslie R. Groves, who had headed the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb; Gen. Douglas MacArthur, famed for leadership in the Pacific during World War II and then for being fired by President Harry Truman in the Korean Conflict.

Mr. Wenning says he guesses that General MacArthur was hired as a figurehead but he did create a few more legends there. One was about corporate officers reporting to work early. “He would stand at the front door across the street at 8 in the morning and wait for the vice presidents to check in,” Mr. Wenning says. “They would drift in at 9 or so at first but eventually they got the message.”

In the early days, no one really knew the ramifications of their work on the data machines.

General MacArthur also enjoyed having his picture taken, with everyone. When it came to Mr. Wenning’s turn, he stood on the floor, he says, and a little platform was provided for the General to stand on. Mr. Wenning is a fairly tall man. General MacArthur was not. But.the General looked up to no one.

In 1951, the first prototype of a working business computer, known as the 409, was unveiled to potential customers and the second prototype was installed at the Internal Revenue Center in Baltimore.

To compare the 409 with any computer today, personal or business, would be ludicrous. The 409, Mr. Wenning says, was more than 7 feet long, 2 feet deep and 5 feet tall, “and generated lots of heat.” In addition, it, was accompanied by a punch card unit, to feed it information, and that itself was as big as a refrigerator.

Today, he adds, any home computer “is a million times faster and better, and a thousand times cheaper.”

But the 409 was first. What the group in the barn had done, Mr. Wenning says, was to take a concept, that of a computer just for business, and bring it to reality. “There was no precedent for it. We went from an idea to a finished product,” he says. There was no question of demand. “There were so many customer orders that in late 1949, the company stopped taking orders,” he says.

In the competitive that followed, International Business Machines became the major player, while Sperry Rand started to turn out business computers under the name of Univac, another company it had absorbed.

In 1961, Mr. Wenning was picked as program manager on a project to bring a much more sophisticated business computer, the Univac 1004 to market. amid so many doubts that it would fly, that it was code-named Bumblebee. Aerodynamically, it should be impossible for a bumblebee to fly, Mr. Wenning explains. But fly it did, becoming the most successful punch-card computer in the company’s history.

By then, dozens of other companies—soon to be hundreds, then thousands—had jumped into research and production of computers. And security had become so tight at the barn, crowded with 185 people at one time, that many people at the mansion had no idea of what was going on across the street.

Mr. Wenning left Sperry Rand in 1962 and went to work for Pitney Bowes of Stamford, became a corporate vice president, arid retired from there in 1986. He now lives in a hilltop home in Old Lyme, with a fine view of the Connecticut River where it meets Long Island Sound.

And Sperry Rand eventually left the state, absorbed into the Unisys Corporation of Pennsylvania. The old Farrell mansion became a private school for young women, then was owned by the Continental Can Corporation and is now headquarters for Hewitt Associates. The barn became the Rowayton Library on one side, the Rowayton Community Center on the other.

The computer industry has also changed more than a bit. From a few dozen companies in the early 1960’s, the industry has grown to more than 10,000 companies around the world today. By the turn of the century it is expected to be the second-largest industry in the world, exceeded only by agriculture.

Last year, Erik H. Rambusch, a management consultant to the information industry and also president of the Rowayton Historical Society, discovered something that dismayed him: there is virtually no written history about the infancy of the computer in Rowayton.

He arranged for a meeting of eight of the men who had worked in the barn in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. They sat around for hours, talking about that time and being tape-recorded. Another session has been planned for next Sunday, to observe the 50th anniversary of the first working model of a business computer, and to reminisce a bit more about being on the threshold of a massive change in technology. “One guy last year said it was the best time of our lives,” Bill Wenning says.

‘There were so many orders that in late 1949 the company stopped taking orders.’

People wishing technical information or to contribute more information about Rowayton’s part in computer development may contact the web site: www.rowayton.org.

James Rand, Chairman and President of Remington Rand, was approached by Loring P. Crosman in 1943 with a plan to build an electronic computer. Remington Rand was known in the business world for its 90-column punch card Tabulating line of equipment.

Crosman’s credentials were rather significant: Twenty years with Monroe Calculating Company, part of that time in charge of Product Development. In anticipation of the technological change taking place that would obsolete mechanical calculating machines, Crosman had taken some electronic courses Columbia University and therefore was not only bringing an idea but a well founded plan which must have impressed Jim Rand because Crosman was hired and went to work at the Brooklyn facility.

Jim Rand apparently recognizing change was on its way began construction of a new laboratory for product development in Norwalk, Connecticut which would eventually be run by General Leslie Groves in 1948. The Brooklyn staff including Crosman began moving into the new facility in 1946.

From 1943 to 1946 Crosman only had a token staff: Joe Milkman (mathematician), Ed Smith (1945 electronics grad) and part-time technicians. This was the group dedicated to the computer development. While developing various elements of the computer Crosman was also designing a Post Office Money Order machine and –believe or not– a toaster for the home. Compared to Remington’s major competitor IBM, this minuscule staff accomplished a great deal.

By the time the move to Norwalk took place, Crosman had an advanced model of his design up and running albeit the input/output and programming capabilities were strictly for demonstration purposes. In 1946/47, after the move to Connecticut, two electrical engineers were hired. The professional staff now consisted of Loring Crosman, Ed Smith, Al Greenfield and Bill Henrich.

In parallel with this effort, the punch card input/output unit was under development by the tabulating design group under the management of Elmer Dreher.

Even though Gen. Groves was now in charge of the new laboratories, Crosman reported to Executive VP Alan Ross who also was Gen. Groves immediate superior. This was a statement by Jim Rand as to the importance of the Crosman activities, even though the staff still was not particularly significant in size.

In 1947/48 period a mechanical engineer Frank Hannon, augmented by two designers, was hired to begin the packaging of a fully featured demonstrable system to be named the Model 3. The unit was uniquely designed to provide easy access for service and incorporated removable electronic modules for repair.

Sometime in 1948 the Crosman group was moved to a carriage house on the grounds of the newly acquired Remington Rand headquarters. The locale was Rowayton, Connecticut (a distinct community within Norwalk) some three miles distant from the Norwalk labs. The facility became known affectionately as the Barn. By the end of 1948 Crosman had demonstrated that his computer designs were fundamentally sound and ready to be productionized for commercialization. The design of the Model 409, basically an extension of the Model 3, was completed in 1948/49 and preproduction components were being fabricated for assembly. The company had reached a level of confidence to begin live demonstrations of the Model 3 in the spring of 1950.

Bill Henrich left Remington Rand in early 1950. He was replaced by Bob Brink who along with Frank Hannon were now responsible to complete the design and documentation of the Model 409 for production.

About this same point in time, Jim Rand decided to put the resources in place to assure the successful completion of the Model 409. The staff doubled and tripled again in 1950/51 and eventually moved to a newly erected Butler building to the rear of the Norwalk labs in 1951. A very small number of units were authorized for production but that number changed dramatically upwards as the first Model 409 off the production line was demonstrated to customers. The first production unit was so popular with the sales force that it never was installed in a customer’s office.

The second, third and fourth production computers were delivered to the Internal Revenue Service facility in Baltimore beginning in 1952. The early success of the Model 409 caused a design upgrade to be undertaken in parallel with the production startup. As a result of the design upgrade, a new product was introduced in the first quarter of 1953. The new computer was named the Univac 120 to take advantage of the prominence of the first Univac produced by the Eckert/Mauchly group acquired by Remington Rand in 1950. Over one thousand units were produced before being replaced by the Univac 1004, the last plugboard computer produced by the Univac Division of the SperryRand Corporation.

The above is still considered a working document and subject to change as we collect more information. We would like to hear from anyone involved with the Model 409 or the Univac 120 series computers whether they be from the Crosman team, the production team at Norwalk, Connecticut or Ilion, New York or users.

Not only are we most interested in contacting people to flesh out this bit of previously unwritten history but we’d like see or hear about any material (any type of manuals, programs or pictures of the equipment or the users) relating to these computers. Two people William H. Henrich and Bob Brink could provide us with important information to fill in some of the missing pieces. Any replies will be answered, in time.

Engineers responsible for developing three of the most economically efficient business computers of their time reminisced for six hours recently at the Rowayton Community Center where it all began.

Eight men, who labored on the Remington Rand 409 created in 1951, the first computer designed specifically for business applications, the Univac 60/120 launched in 1953 and the Univac 1004 developed in 1962, filled a blank space in computer history known only to them and a few associates.

“I have checked all the guys in the computer history business, and none of them have knowledge about two of the machines you’ve told me about today, said Dr. Colin Burke, history professor at the University of Maryland, who attended to gain information for a book about Remington Rand.

“What you’ve done, gentleman, by coming here today is to protect your legacy, Erik H. Rambusch, information systems management consultant and president of the sponsoring Rowayton Historical Society. “You have transformed oral history in this tape-recorded session that will become part of the written record of the information-technology industry.”

Although much is known about the 1004, its creators were surprised to learn their years of work on the 409 and 60/120 had been forgotten. A couple of the men displayed scrapbooks filled with photos and clippings confirming their successes in company news publications dating back almost 50 years.

“It’s hard to believe there isn’t something out there somewhere on these machines,” said William B. Wenning, now of Old Lyme, youngest of the octet at 68.

Wenning showed a time line he created for the period after Remington Rand purchased the James A. Farrell estate in 1944. It indicated that engineering research on the 409 transferred to the Community Center (originally the Farrell estate’s stable and then known as “the barn”) in 1947 after the company moved its research component from Brooklyn, N.Y. Work continued until 1951 when engineers had completed design of the 409, and were transferred back to the main research and development plant at 333 Wilson Ave., South Norwalk where the manufacturing phase was begun. No engineers would work in the barn again until 1961 when they began designing the Univac 1004.

Retired Army Gen. Leslie R. Groves, who had used a two-team competitive approach in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb during World War II, did the same in developing the 409 after joining Remington Rand following the war. One team led by Loring P. Crosman worked in what is now the Rowayton Library section of the building, while another team directed by Joseph A. Brustman occupied what is now the Community Center portion of the building, the former stable.

“There was a wall between the two teams that went right through the building about where the children’s library is,” said M. James Marin of 21 Woodchuck Lane, a mechanical designer on the 409. “My work station was a former horse stall right about in the middle of the reading room. The place still smelled of horses when I started working here in December of ‘49. Marin left Remington Rand in 1955 but returned in 1960 to lead the package design for the Univac 1004, which earned him a U.S. patent.

“I was very proud the day they had a party for the Univac 1004 team, and we brought our families in to see what we’d been working on for a year, Marin said. “I was happy my family heard my name mentioned that day”

The 1004 combined reading, processing and printing in one highspeed unit that was so efficient that several thousand units were sold worldwide.

Michael A. Norelli Jr., who came from Albany, N.Y., for the session, worked at what was then known as “the barn” for several months in 1950-51 before moving to the larger Remington Rand facility at 333 Wilson Ave. in 1954. He returned to the company in 1960 as a senior engineer.

“What I remember best is the 1004 was the first in Univac history to go through the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) testing without a problem,” Norelli said. “Jim and I had one shot to do it, and we did it all in one year.”

Jacob A. Randmer of 14 Exeter Lane, Wilton, had been brought over from Germany before the war on a contract with Remington Rand to work on storage tubes and other electronic devices after graduating from the Institute of Technology in Berlin. He was systems engineering director when the company left Norwalk in 1962 for Blue Bell, Pa.

“There was nothing technologically unique about the 1004, but what made it so successful was what it did and what it cost,” said Randmer, at 80 the oldest of the former associates. “The 1004 was all transistorised and had a core memory with an integrated card reader and printer. It was also most reliable for the state of the art at the time.”

The biggest thrill for A. Gordon Chamberlain of Cos Cob was delivering the first operational 409 to the IRS building in Baltimore, Md. in 1952.

“We put it in a moving van and when we got across the Hudson River, we had a state police escort all the way down the New Jersey Turnpike that hadn’t yet opened to the public. When we got to Baltimore, we had to put it into the building through an opening in the wall on the second floor. We had more trouble getting it in the building than starting it.”

The 409 was the first electromechanical computer of stand alone, modular design that allowed replacement of parts in modules.

David W. Bernard, a Norwalk native now living in Sherborn, Mass., came to the barn in 1948 as a development engineer on the Brustman team. After a service tour during the Korean War, he later became a department manager.

John Carmichael of the Riverside section of Greenwich, who learned about communications as a U.S. Marine during the war, came to the company in 1951.

“I remember how thrilled I was when we took the first 409 out of the Butler building (behind the Wilson Avenue plant) and loaded it on a truck,” he said.

Carmichael would later be one of those who took the first Univac 60/120 to an industrial fair in Barcelona, Spain. The Univac name was used to identify the successor to the 409 because by that time Remington Rand had acquired the Univac Company of Philadelphia and preferred to market its products under what had become a generic name for the early computers.

“It was the first electronic machine in Europe, and I never really appreciated how far ahead we were in America until that experience and it made me very proud to be part of this operation.”

“You hadn’t smoked for a year before you went over there and when you came back you were smoking like a steam engine,” kidded Chamberlain.

Alfred L. Henchcliffe, a Greenwich native now living in Southbury, worked in the barn during 1949 and 1950 and was later was a demonstrator for the third version of the 409 at the main plant.

“I remember one time Jim Rand (the president) came in a I stopped momentarily, but he said: ‘Go on. You’re doing something more important than I am.’ ”

Henchcliffe would become a test engineer at Burndy and then Framatone before returning in 1982.

Wenning returned to the barn in August of 1961 as program manager for the Univac 1004.

“We had 185 people in this place.” Wenning said to disbelieving listeners. “We had six to eight engineers in 10 by 10 cubicles. They were upstairs in both wings, in the basement and all across the main floor. I’ve seen pictures of a drafting room with 60 people in it.”

Wenning was on the second floor in the wing later used as the apartment for the late 6th District caretaker Joseph Cheh and his family. Cheh had been an employee of the Farrell family and lived in the gatehouse after Remington Rand bought the property.

“Joe was one of our support people when I was there,” said Wenning, who a decade ago married a niece of Cheh. He would later leave what became Sperry Rand after the move to Pennsylvania and become an assistant to the president of Pitney Bowes in Norwalk and Stamford.

When Wenning came back to the barn in 1961 after having been at the main plant for a decade, he said: “It felt like home. I saluted the moose and went right to work.” (He was referring to a moose head over the fireplace in the main room of the community center that has been there since the days of the Farrell dominion.) However, he and the rest of his group were unaware that corporate developments would soon move the research group out of the barn once again and the entire operation out of the city.

Sperry Rand would dissolve into Sperry Univac and Sperry Univac would eventually become part of the Unisys Corporation .

“After all I heard today, I think we are now safe in saying that the Rowayton Community Center is the birthplace of the world’s first business computer.” said Rambusch.