In a recent note, Patrick O'Keefe said:
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:38:00 -0600
> >...
> >adjectives I'd use to describe such code: "badly-written"
> >or "badly-designed". Or, am I missing a good reason
> >(unrelated to the hard-coded DDNAMEs) that FTP shouldn't be
> >used by multiple tasks within one address space?
> >...
>
> A good question for the TCP/IP list. I'm guessing it just never occurred
> to the designer. (Who'd want to do that?)
>
FTP is confusingly polymorphic. I understand that there's only one
FTP, which operates under batch, TSO, and UNIX shell, but differently.
I tried the experiments from the TSO READY prompt:
after ALLOCATE DD(INPUT) DUMMY
FTP appears to operate normally.
after ALLOCATE DD(INPUT) PATH('/dev/zero')
FTP locks the screen and it stays locked.
after ALLOCATE DD(OUTPUT) PATHOPTS(ORDONLY) PATH('/./dev/null')
FTP appears to operate normally.
after ALLOCATE DD(OUTPUT) DUMMY
FTP produces no terminal output.
Most of this is consistent with FTP's attempting to open INPUT
for input and defaulting to GETLINE if it fails; and attempting
to open OUTPUT for output and defaulting to PUTLINE if it fails.
I can't think of a good experiment to try under UNIX shell.
Perhaps it attempts to use stdin and stdout, but where in the
pecking order?
FWIW,
gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
