On Monday, 11/24/2008 at 11:06 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They still retain SFS as a requirement for implementing a shared > logging > > facility for the SMAPI servers, so none of that complexity is > alleviated. > > Ugh. Well, that frankly sucks. Having simple UIs depend on one of the > more complicated CMS features seems suboptimal in just about every way I > can think of, especially with all the other choices available for > reasonable logging methods.
For the last few years I've been saying that we are moving forward with MORE reliance on SFS to solve problems for us that we otherwise have to write code to deal with. If I could easily get the TCP/IP suite to be able to use SFS for the 198 and 191, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Those sysprogs who've been in the biz for the past 20 years have had plenty of time to learn and integrate SFS into their daily lives. Those who are new should be learning Best Practices for managing SFS and BFS from the grizzled veterans. > Would also make sense. As I said, just a guess on my part. I don't claim > to know the Mind of Alan. It may seem like it from time to time, judging by some e-mail he gets and posts here, but Alan is not attached to a wish-granting machine. ;-) Rather, there is a team of fine people who breathe life into VM, doing planning, architecture, design, code, test, documentation, delivery, and service. I can tell you that they aren't interested in doing unnecessary work; they don't have time. If an existing VM facility provides what they need, they are encouraged to use it. Let me take this opportunity, in fact, to publicly thank the rest of the z/VM development team, spread across the globe, for their support of my "ombudsmanship". Their efforts make me look good. :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
