I am agreeing with Brian on some of his points. I am viewing this issue with 20+ years of hindsight.
What I see is that z/OSMF development is following the same path as all of the other 'lets get modern' projects. You pick the pretty GUI you like and start applying that toolset against a currently working 'solved' problem. Promising modernization according to latest hot topics in code development. Buzzwords come and go, languages come and go, software development kits come and go ad infinitum. What tends to be forgotten are all the time and effort spent on building the solution to the old solved problem. I can remember many discussions here and elsewhere about ServerPac changes and difficulties that could benefit by more development changes. Who remembers all the IBM and OEM 'assistance' products created to buffer us poor feeble support teams from the evils of SMP or SMP/E. z/OSMF is just the latest way to 'dumb down' the complexities for the masses. But then reality steps in. Somebody, Somewhere HAS to know what has to happen when the rubber meets the road. And navigating from the GUI through the stack of products to get to the Road is a long and twisted path. IF (a big IF) you think the same way the GUI developer thinks, then life can get smoother. Any attempt to repeat the processes that were repeatable and have worked before will meet resistance. With the removal of old options like ServerPac and being forced to the new paradigm of z/OSMF will eventually lead to a better z/OSMF tool. But lood for years of development just like ServerPac needed to achieve its popularity. [End of Rant ---- For Now] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
