The point is exactly that - THERE IS NO NEED - given the today's available facilities in z/OS.
However, if this ISV has been around for a while and this hook has existed for as many years then it is likely that quite a few software products will have inherited it. The development cost of replacing each use of the code would be high and maybe that explains the continued existence of such ugliness. Obviously today something like PC routines would be used - however a prereq of this is some sort of owning server address space and that could well be a major design sticking point for the offending products. Hiding it in the FLIH rather than a user SVC is rather like hiding your front-door key under a rock in the garden instead of under the doormat - harder to find but equally as risky. Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA Tel: +1.781.684.2305 Email: [email protected] Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave Sent: 24 February 2012 17:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Program FLIH What I don't understand, pardon my "naifness" (split the thread John:), is the need for such today. When any of the vendors I named instruct me so, I dutifully APF their libraries and they often reside in the linklist which we at least do set AFP via IEASYSxx. Why a secret authority changing hook? > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 7:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Program FLIH > > On Feb 24, 2012, at 08:01, Edward Jaffe wrote: > > > On 2/24/2012 5:43 AM, John Gilmore wrote: > >> There had been a tacit assumption that notionally respectable ISVs > do > >> not do such things. That assumption has been undermined, and even > >> responsible ISVs will now have to spend time and energy reassuring > >> their customers that they are not guilty too. > >> > >> They are all now in the position of a locksmith suspected of > burglary. > > > > I had a similar thought, so yesterday I reviewed our integrity > statement... > > > Does the unnamed vendor have a similar integrity statement which is > being ignored? > > -- gil
