On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:41:07 EST "(IBM Mainframe Discussion List)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In a message dated 3/31/2006 5:28:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, :>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :>>I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their :>>JES2 expertise to disappear. :>Their management also decided/allowed years earlier for JES2 exits to be :>written and be made part of production systems in the first place. Exits for :>almost any software product by nature will be dependent on that product's :>internals (sort exits and SMF exits quickly come to mind as exceptions). :>Internals change a lot more frequently than externals. I wonder if their management :>also required those JES2 exits to be thoroughly documented by their :>developers "just in case" and what management required those exit developers to do :>during their last week of employment. I wonder as to the reaction should CA change their exit API and charge their customers the same fees to assess their exits. Somehow I would think that many of those that justify IBM taking this action would strongly object if an ISV acted the same way. :>Why does this remind me of management's deciding to allow a one-byte field :>to store the year number in the 1960s and then being "surprised" when Y2K was :>only a few months away? They were much more surprised that the code was still in use 30 years later. Are YOU planning for Y10K? -- Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
