On Tuesday, 05/23/2006 at 02:25 EST, "Jeff Gribbin, EDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As you so rightly say, this is hopefully addressed by dialogue with the > developers at the design / concept stage - ensuring that the problem > description accurately reflects the vision of what is needed. > > Alas, so far it only seems to be you-and-me that're willing to get excited > by this - I really expected you to start a mailstorm with this one but it > seems to have failed to capture the community's imagination. We'll > certainly need more opinions than just yours-and-mine if this ever gets to > the, "IBM asking for feedback" stage!
The concept isn't new to us, of course. (I've bandied it around here for several years myself.) If/when we ever get to the point of wanting to do this, we will indeed be coming to the community (or a some subset at the very least) to discuss it. It is not clear, however, than large numbers of customers would benefit from it. Would you write programmable devices? [rehetorical question..just think about it.] Certainly ISVs who want to provide new capabilities would benefit, and the IBM customers who use those products are benefitting. But that darned business case keeps coming up. I *do* recognize that a nice *RDEVICE system service is not the same thing as IBM providing SCSI tape solutions. And it's even different from changing SPXTAPE to work with V/Tape. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
