At 08:55 -0400 on 08/31/2006, Bob Shannon wrote about Re: ISV Anchor Table:
>If I were doing it, I'd allocate a "reasonable" size table with room for >expansion (ie: Empty Slots past the currently assigned slot number). A 4K >table, has room for 1024 Slots/ISVs. Even a 1K table has room for 256 >slots. Either 1K or 2K should be more than enough for the foreseeable >future needs based on the 1 Slot per ISV method without the need to expand >it via maintenance. Why do you think IBM did anything other than that? Bob Shannon Rocket Software
I never said (or intended to imply) that IBM did not wildly over-allocate the table size (since the "extra" space is insignificant as I indicated) to avoid the running out of slots that the original querent asked about (ie: [paraphrasing] "What will happen if IBM runs out of slots to assign and a PTF to expand the table size needed to be issued?"). I was just responding to say what I would do and neglected to qualify it with something on the order of "and I assume that IBM did something on this order".
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
