On Thursday, 03/29/2007 at 11:21 AST, Melissa Howland/Endicott/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So one should be very cautious about replacing the sockets (or other PFS) > BPX1 routines in the BFS on CMS. For example, if you replace BPX1SOC, you > have just ripped all of the sockets support out from under your C servers > running on CMS (that is, you can't replace just one addressing family > easily....BPX1SOC is all of your sockets addressing families). Also, the > sockets PFS shares some BPX routines with the file PFS, so if you replace > BPX1RED (read), you've just ripped out your read() function for files, too. > > So please consider this option with great caution. Aye, there be dragons here. Or worse. "Abandon hope all ye who here enter" pops to mind. It is an effort not to be undertaken lightly as the Law of Unintended Consquences (previously known as "unpredictable results may occur") definitely applies. If you start ripping out (replacing) one CSL routine you will undboutedly find yourself replacing others: Open, Close, Read, Write are all related, expecting to find the same infrastructure in the background. IBM spent a lot of time & money writing those CSL routines, so it is only fair that if it was hard for us that it be hard for the next person, eh? :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
