I suppose you're right now that I think of it a bit. I also used QMF many years ago (from TSO) and it seems I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I naturally assumed they wrote it as a full screen TSO application so that a) it would run from TSO without needing ISPF, and b) so that they could have better control over the interface.
Perhaps that was true to some extent back then, but I wonder how true it is now? Lindy -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth E Tomiak Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: What do you call something like QMF? > I consider myself lucky not to have had to support QMF in many years, when I did, I thought it also ran under CICS. IIRC, that would be the reason it was not an ISPF application. Once developers get the notion to run in multiple environments, they want to ignore environment specific technologies in order to use the same code base. QMF did not sell enough graphics capable terminals so complaints must have poured in to remove the GDDM overhead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
