On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:21:09 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Well, you're right, that's certainly an example of a 21st century value to >sequence numbers. > >One might counter-argue that in 2013 the difference between distributing a >20-line patch versus an entire 2000-line macro (about 158K before any >compression) was not terribly significant. > And ++MACUPD and ++SRCUPD rely on the IEBUPDTE utility, and their cousin ++ZAP relies on AMASPZAP, all of which preclude the use of APPLY REDO. In that respect, it's worse.
>-----Original Message----- > On Behalf Of Skip Robinson >Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 11:45 AM > >++MACUPD and ++SRCUPD depend entirely on FB sequence numbers. Without >sequence numbers, every macro or source 'update' would have to be delivered >as a complete replacement. For better or worse. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
