Bob Shannon wrote:
I've never heard anyone claim PDSEs were "great". Even "good" would be a stretch. Making SMS a requirement for PDSEs was a marketing decision, not a technical one. Support for a non-SMS environment has nothing to do with current problems. PDSEs were buggy for a long time after introduction, and many of the current complaints about PDSEs trace back to the original design. "Elegant" is a word rarely used in a PDSE discussion.
The number of problems in PDSE support increased dramatically shortly after significant numbers of customers actually started using them -- more than a decade after they were first introduced. Users were afraid of them, so they never got debugged until recently. (After a decade or so, you would think they would be stable. Think again.) PDSE is now *required* for some products, which explains the sudden increase in exposure. The performance characteristics were so poor that IBM was forced to do some "on-the-fly" development for caching, which introduced even more bugs. Add to that locking problems, sharing restrictions, continued lack of IPL-time support, etc. It hasn't been a pretty picture...
Having said all that, we use PDSE almost exclusively. Our default SMS data classes for DSORG=PO data sets specifies DSNTYPE=LIBRARY. Haven't compressed a source or load library in eons...
-- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
