On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:50:10 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: >On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:02:23 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: >> >>I would suggest that you decline the request and say that since CA-1 >>"interacts" and is IBM module dependent it is in the best interest of >>all parties to be in a deliverable state which facilitates IBM >>maintenance. >> >It has been a long time since I did anything with CA-1, but I don't remember >it ever having IFREQs on IBM maintenance, or even going into the same zone >or belonging to Z038. Unless I am mistaken, Ed's comment doesn't apply. > >All it takes to nullify the advantages of an SMP/E installation is *one* >request from the vendor to apply service with BYPASS(ID). > >That said, my preference has generally been for an SMP/E install, provided >that it is done correctly. This is no trivial matter, and as Mark pointed >out. Innovation does a fine job without it. I wouldn't ask them to divert >resources from product development to provide proper SMP/E packaging. My experience must predate Tom's - I certainly do remember UCC-1 maintenance PRE-ing IBM PTFs (for Open/Close/EOV/etc.). However, that was a long, long, long time ago and Russell's current methods might well no longer need that. I do not, for example, recall having PTF issues with CA- 1 in the slightly more recent past. And I am not now a CA-1 customer so I (a) can't say and (b) don't have a vote. But if Russell believes he can ship working code with or without SMP/E, I believe him. My present work location has contract requirements that ALL software must be installed via SMP/E (if SMP/E is at all an option). Software that is not available via SMP/E is generally not allowed here. -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
