And Kirk, you are THE java technolgy here. Protect your case... On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Itschak Mugzach <imugz...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 <jch...@ussco.com> 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
