As expected, I believe. But did the second run was faster as the JVM was loaded? What is the ratio?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Chase, John <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Itschak Mugzach > > > > I wonder if this was tested ever: same business logic in batch or > CICS. NO\o > > zAAP installed. Who is faster? and in case of zAAP? > > It's been a few months since we did an informal comparison, but on a > z9-BC without zAAP the CICS COBOL code was "noticeably" faster than the > equivalent CICS Java code. > > -jc- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
