In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/23/2005
at 02:12 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In regard to the legacy code, ten years ago I might have agreed with
>you and argued for a compatibility interface. Since the FBA change
>would be part of an overall revolutionary set of changes requiring
>all new control blocks, I suspect trying to maintain compatibility
>would result in a real kludge.
Why? Most of the required infrastructure is already in place. Or do
you see a need to do away with the ACB and RPL control blocks as well?
>Since BSAM, QSAM and BPAM can't handle records larger than 32k and
>names greater than 8 bytes anyway, significant changes would be
>needed for any program that actually used BSAM, the Assembler
>interface to QSAM or BPAM.
My concern was that existing programs continue to run with new DASD.
Exploitation of new features is a separate issue. I see no need for
any changes to existing applications using BPAM, BSAM or QSAM.
>Similarly, job names and usernames larger than 8 characters are going
>to break much of the existing JES structure so a new work flow
>manager may well be the cheapest way to go.
I don't see that; it would seem less expensive to just modify the
existing C/I, Initiator, JES2 and JES3 control blocks and code. User
exits, of course, would not be portable, and you would need new SSI
calls. I suspect that the changes would be far heavier in the BCP than
in the JES's.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
