> Bob Bolch wrote: > > The support for the System Management API servers is enhanced in 5.4.0 > to > > use this writable saved segment for inter-process communications, rather > > than use SFS to communicate between the SMAPI request servers and the > worker > > machines. > > > I wonder what prompted them to do that....was something wrong with the SFS > interface?
Just a guess: SFS has no direct interfaces from Linux, and probably won't ever have them because somebody would have to grovel through that code and figure out (and document) how SFS interacts with APPC and other bits of CMS. Using a segment is all CP services, and Linux already has code to deal with DCSS-based data. Makes future extensions of the SMAPI support a lot simpler if they don't have to deal with CMS programming and language restrictions (no Java, etc). Also, think about complexity. SMAPI is supposed to be the interface for management widgets to use to control VM without knowing squat about CMS or ever seeing that nasty 3270 green-screen. SFS is not trivial to set up for newbies (for anybody, IMHO). DEF SEG is one command and you're ready to rock and roll. You also get positive feedback (the rc) that it was successful and available w/o any extra programming. Seems like a reasonable choice if you take these two points as gospel. > > We tried to convince IBM during the 5.4.0 ESP that it was more > appropriate > > to statically define the NAMESAVE record for this segment in the source > > directory entry configuration files for the SMAPI user IDs and document > the > > use of that segment, rather than dynamically (and secretly) add it to > the > > SMAPI user IDs whenever SMAPI was started. They disagreed. My vote's with Bob. Hard-coding stuff like this seems like a user requirement in the making -- somebody is going to want to have control over the name. Same problem in DFSMS with hard-coding VMSYS:.
