On Feb 11, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
On Feb 10, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Knutson, Sam wrote:
------------------------
SNIP--------------------------------------------
It seems like feeding any updates for vendor products not already
listed
in the current IBM sample to the console team is a good idea for
the MVS
community and you too.
Sam:
Good job and good effort. Did you get positive feedback from the
vendors as "updates" ? (did they deliver in a timely fashion?)
It's doubtful there are many mainstream ISV products left to be
identified. The one-byte console ID tracking feature has been
generally available and being actively used throughout the world-
wide z/OS community for over two years now. (It was released in
February 2004 with the Console Availability enhancements in z/OS
1.4.2 aka JBB7727). ISVs and ESP customers had access to it much
earlier that.
The console ID tracking effort has been exhaustively discussed at
SHARE (beginning with the February 2004 conference in Long Beach),
CA-World, z/OS Expo and other user group meetings.
One-byte EMCS migration IDs were completely desupported as of z/OS
1.7, which became GA last September.
At this point, the one-byte console ID tracking effort is primarily
aimed at identifying problems in "home gown" code and products from
small ISVs that don't pay much attention to what's going on. All of
the "heavy lifting" should have been done by now.
IMNSHO, any major software developers (including those at IBM) with
products still using one-byte console IDs should be considered
irresponsible. The problem should have been addressed years ago.
Hopefully, we can avoid the temptation to give them "kudos" for
addressing the problem in a reactionary manner -- no matter how
quickly they respond. (Face it. The Prodigal Son was a jerk!)
Naturally, this comment does not refer to discovering a rarely-
executed condition in a product thought to have been already made
compliant. Software "bugs" are a fact of life and nobody is perfect!
Ed,
I thought the same about SWA (above the line). I waited 1 year before
implementing it. Two of the major vendors did not support it. One
came up with a fix within a week or so. the other just sat there,
that is when I started to look at the code myself. As I said it was
lucky we had source for it, if it had been object code I would not
have found the issue so quickly (let alone coming up with a solution).
The two vendors are still in the big time but after that experience I
steered the customers away from their products.
In the past some IBM products seriously lagged behind MVS. I don't
know these days. On the other extreme I have seen vendors depend on
JES2 APARS (new ones) . They forced the JES2 maintenance issue at one
place. Luckily the JES2 people put out reasonably reliable fixes. I
can't recall of ever having to back off a JES2 fix. Although about
10 years a go it was close. Luckily it required the user to alter the
coding of a DLM issue. The PTF made a vague reference to it.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
