On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:55:33 -0500 John McKown <[email protected]> wrote:
:>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Gary Weinhold <[email protected]> wrote: :> :>> NT services have a very short path length compared to most alternatives, :>> but are not as fast as a CVT or ECVT based anchor. However, if the data is :>> address-space or TCB related, rather than lpar-based, I wouldn't think CVT :>> or ECVT based anchors would work well. There are unsupported techniques to :>> access NT data more efficiently. :>> :> :>?<shudder/> I remember the days of products fighting over use of the :>CVTUSER and TCBUSER fields. Name/Token is much better. And is GUPI ?as :>well. I would hate for a vendor (Scott works for one) to use these. What I :>have done in the past, is to dynamically create a subsystem; which creates :>an SSVT. I can then use that area for my own stuff. But finding the SSVT :>from a "random" address space would probably cost as much, if not more, :>than using a Name/Token. Vendors request a word in the vendor area. That points to their stuff. SSCT lookup is quite slow as well. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
