At 22:58 -0800 on 01/04/2008, shai hess wrote about Re: SMP/E and why not.:
Dave Salt: Totally agree with you. Imagine how easy it to return to your old load library in case of error and not pray that SMP/E with the APPLY/RESTORE/ACCEPT/RECEIVE/REJECT will work fine for you. As I said "SMP/E and why not" for some cases only. Thanks, Shai
My biggest gripe with the design of SMP/E is the use of a RESTORE design that will back-out a PTF (or set of PTFs) to get back to the state you were in (or would have been in) before you APPLY'ed the PTF(s). Right now you must RESTORE PTFs that you will just turn around a reAPPLY just to RESTORE a PTF that PREs or SUPs the PTFs. A better design is to see what SYSMOD owns each element that is being RESTOREd and just do an automatic APPLY of only that element instead of removing elements that are not contained in the PTF being RESTOREd.
IOW: PTF1 contains elements A and B and PTF2 (which PREs PTF1) contains an updated element B. To Restore PTF2 you should not need to ALSO restore PTF1 (which then needs to be reAPPLY'ed) but just use the PTF1 version of B to replace the PTF2 version of B. The current implementation of RESTORE forces a string of PTFs to get RESTOREd (only to then get APPLY'ed again) due to the fact that the contents of the PTF getting RESTOREd intersects multiple PTFs (each of which contain elements not in the PTF being backed out).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
