On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:15:33 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >- we have no one who is a drop-dead SMP/E packaging design expert. >- when we go to people who are SMP/E packaging experts they say "your IEBCOPY >install is a work of art! It is so simple! Why would you want to change? SMP/E >is waaaaay overkill." >- but some larger customers really, really, really want SMP/E. One Sysprog >said something to me like "yeah, SMP/E is awful, but it's the same awful for >everything. (Goes to Tom Brennan's point.) I'm sure your install is great, but >it's unique, and I have limited learning time." > One source of complexity is the habit of customers to insist on paths/DSNs that follow local conventions. "Ya gotta have standards!" But the customer and the ISV have different views of who is better positioned to define the standards.
I once said among these fora that if the customer chooses the names the examples in the supplied documentation are invalidated; they can't be simply copied-and-pasted. The rebuttal came, "The docs should be machine readable and the customer can simply run them through a filter that updates the names." Spare me! I hope he was facetious. IBM took a step in a good direction by providing the /usr/lpp hirearchy (I would have preferred /usr/local.) Something similar should have been done for Classic data set names long ago. (44 characters is too little.) I concur with the need to install an advanced version along special paths for testing. Ideally that should be as simple as changing one HLQ. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
