Warner,
Agreed. Even take a look an IBM and their completely replacing hole
lmods in their "new" UNIXland modules. I was really discouraged to
see IBM do this. I guess it goes along with the rest of IBM's "OE"
outlook. I complained once to second level about it and got back an
answer that essentially said we know what is best.
Ed
On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Warner Mach wrote:
<snip>
I guess I have to take strong exception to your characterization of
my suggestion as a "misuse" of SMP/E. Yes, it is different than
"normal", but my process suggestions offer significant benefits both
to the vendor and the customer for those products whose installation
requirements are simple enough that they can take advantage of it.
In any case, my process uses proper SMP commands and packaging with
no degradation of SMP/E capabilities. It's not like I'm suggesting
that nonsupported interfaces or methods be used.
So I will continue to strongly encourage my approach for those
products that can benefit from it.
<snip>
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the actual different
usages of SMP within IBM products themselves. As one of my
fellow systems programmers once commented: "There is really
not one SMP. There is SMP as used for the operating system,
SMP as used in conjunction with CICS, and SMP as used in
conjunction with IMS".
The way that SMP is used in conjunction with IMS is fully as far
from 'normal' as the use of SMP described in this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
