Bruce, That brings up the whole discussion of what is better for maintenance, zaps or csect-replacements. CA-1 (and TLMS and other BrightStor products) all switched to csect-replacements instead of zap's after the Sterling acquisition (who acquired who is still a subject open to discussion). With the speed and availability of the internet and email and ftp; it really has made things much easier. It is just as easy and safer to give a client a csect-replacement (I don't want to say load-module replacement since we might only replace one element in a multi-csect load-module) then to send them a zap. And with zaps you are left with either having to have each zap to an element have a pre-req to the previous zap to the same element or use BYPASS all the time. And what is the difference between downloading and applying (one at a time) a dozen zap's to get the latest version applied or downloading a single csect-replacement that is a SUP for all the previous maintenance applied to that csect? Doing a dozen applies seems a lot harder and prone to error then a single apply of a csect-replacement.
Russell Witt CA-1 Level-2 Support Manager -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bruce Black ...<snip>... Seymour, are you suggesting that he abandon his long term practice of providing maintenance as zaps just to be more SMP-friendly? He explained in an earlier email how this lets him get fixes out more quickly, and it keeps his assembly listings down to a manageable number (major maintenance levels). Innovation does much the same thing with zaps and assemblies and it works very well for us. No wasted time trying to find out the RMID of a module so we can find the listing. -- Bruce A. Black ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
