At 9/13/2006 04:51 PM, PO'Keefe wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:35:40 -0400, David Cole wrote:
I guess I have to take strong exception to your characterization of
my suggestion as a "misuse" of SMP/E. ...
I agree with Arthur here. It souinds like your procedure just uses
SMP as a driver for IEBCOPY. Yes, that's something SMP does, so I
guess it's not a "misuse", but but it completely eliminates SMP's
ability to coordinate maintenance (which is its only value, IM not
so HO). If you are going to use that technique, why bother with SMP
at all? If your product does not need the coordination of fixes,
you don't need SMP.
To someone trying to learn SMP, this technique is very misleading.
To those already familiar with SMP this could look like a marketting
gimick, just allowing you to say "We use SMP".
Pat O'Keefe
Please see my recent response to MZelden for the advantages I find in
using SMP/E vs. direct IEBCOPYs.
As to "coordinating maintenance", as I've already stated in this
thread that z/XDC resolves its dependency issues at execution time,
not at installation time. So there is no need for z/XDC to coordinate
maintenance with anyone else, nor is there any need for anyone to
coordinate maintenance with z/XDC. It is a non-issue.
And there it an additional advantage to execution time resolution of
dependencies. It contributes to keeping the installed product uniform
from one customer to the next. And that significantly reduces my
source level maintenance burden. I don't ever have to (or want to)
keep 2 or more versions of the same module.
Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.xdc.com
736 Fox Hollow Road VOICE: 540-456-8536
Afton, VA 22920 FAX: 540-456-6658
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
