On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 21:46, René Jansen <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a matter of perspective. My perspective is that we could show people > (among those, people younger than ourselves) who are interested in the data > flow paradigm what already exists and how brilliant it is. >
I think the concern is that people are using the name "CMS/TSO Pipelines" for something different. This is confusing; we don't like people doing that. If you write something that implements a data flow programming model, nobody will hold you back and some may encourage you. Just don't claim it is CMS Pipelines. I find new gems in CMS Pipelines every day. Maybe I'm just slow, but it is unlikely that someone else will have a truly compatible implementation. So you end up to define "compatible" as that it covers the pieces that you've used or understood. This probably does not cover what others need. Being used to the scope of CMS Pipelines, I find piping the the UNIX shell just "a toy" as John says. Some are just fine with what they have. I did look at njpipes some time ago and within minutes I was in trouble (meaning a pipe that doesn't do what I'm used to with CMS Pipelines). When you write an editor for the PC, you don't call it "TSO" just because that's the only thing you've done on MVS and believe that's all that others do there. Rob
