On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:42:18 +0200, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >... Thus making the description of the node depend upon >the type of the PU it contains, as is implied by "... it is the PU that has >a type designation and that 'type i node' is an alias for 'PU_Ti node'" >obviously breaks down. In the new world where the "PU" entity is optional, >the type designation has to go with the "node" entity - and there's no need >to drag the type designation of the "PU" entity along with it when the type >designation of the "node" entity require sub-designations. >... Actually, I think it never held up. As far as I know a node has always been hardware and a PU has always bee a program (as described in a FAP and probably originally desiged using FAPL). The PU never had to match the node type (although each non-APPN node had a PU based on the node's capabilities). For example, a PU_T1 never ran in a node T_1, as far as I know. (I think a PU_T1 was by definition the PU code supporting a device too dumb to have executable code.) It always ran on something else - a T_4 (or maybe T_5, but I never heard of that implementation). Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
