You have to add at least one more likely choice to that list
O Lack of resources
IBM has a finite amount of developer and testing folks time which can be
used to ship new feature and function in a release.
IBM hw/sw planners and others drive requirements inside IBM.
We customers through Marketing Requirements and user group (SHARE,
COMMON, Guide/SHARE Europe, IDUG, etc.) Requirements raise them.
I assume decisions are made and resources assigned based on priorities
to add value to the platform, support key IBM hw/sw, reduce support
costs both for IBM and the customer and I imagine a myriad of other
factors.
While PC Screening and PCUPDTE "seem" logical and useful I have never
heard this raised as a requirement in discussions with IBM. It may well
be on the drawing board unfinished or unimplemented. Maybe there are
good reasons it was not done in the first place. Perhaps the perception
that the security and stability of Program Call would be better if no
one "hooked" code in this way. As a customer I don't want anyone
hooking ENQ, GETMAIN or the PC equivalents it just complicates upgrades,
creates problems, and complicates debugging of problems.
As a customer in the trenches stability, availability, security,
reliability, functionality are keystones and cost is king. Ease of use
is rising concern even for the uber techies or perhaps because of an
expected shortage someday. If I put together a top list of requirements
for IBM and ISV's I doubt this would make the list. So the big iron
geek in me can agree that of course it should be done and should have
been done years ago but the customer focused side says hold up there a
minute what don't I get while they are off doing this?
I would prefer IBM do more work to eliminate the need for use of
unsupported dynamic hook and patch points used by ISVs so they can get
off those unintended interfaces and into new, stable, robust, documented
exit points. A generalized PC hooking facility seems like an invitation
to more of what customers want to see go away.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Sam Knutson, GEICO
System z HW/SW/Automation Team Leader
mailto:sknut...@geico.com
(office) 301.986.3574
(cell) 301.996.1318
"Think big, act bold, start simple, grow fast..."
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Shane Ginnane
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 5:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PC Screening (Was: ENQ trap for dynamic allocation)
Peter Relson wrote:
> But I will point out that we have been making concerted efforts to get
> ISVs to share with us their use of "unintended interfaces".
Then Ed Jaffe wrote:
> Whether by oversight, laziness, perceived difficulty of
implementation,
> or whatever, IBM implemented no equivalent programming interface for
> PC calls. PC call intercepts, if needed, must always be done at a
system
> level using "unintended" interfaces.
Doesn't sound like IBMs "concerted efforts" are working too well.
Knowing Ed, he would have been
in there batting hard for this and is obviously pissed off with the
response so far.
I'm always for more openness - it's up to IBM to provide the interfaces
IMHO.
Shane ...
====================
This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this
email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
