Just pointing out the obvious: This whole thread is exactly why it is important to code your applications to programming interfaces. Intercepting, front-ending, whatever: you are only asking for trouble.
But I will point out that we have been making concerted efforts to get ISVs to share with us their use of "unintended interfaces". We typically feel free to change, as needed, things that are not documented programming interfaces. When we (incompatibly) change documented programming interfaces, we try to get that changed noted in the migration publications for a release. When we know something unintended is being done, we factor that into our design process. It might or might not change our mind on what we need to do, but it does enable us to alert the application owner of the need to change (rather than relying on their happening to find out). Has anyone identified to IBM the exact need of this application? It is not to intercept all ENQs. Yet by intercepting all ENQs, you might be adversely affecting the entire system. In all likelihood, even if the requirement were accepted, it would not be implemented by the time you initiallly needed it. But if it is implemented later, you would be able to exploit that change and get out of the dangerous game you are playing (assuming that you really do want your application to keep working). As with any requirement, the more users it will benefit, the more likely it is that it will be accepted and implemented. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
