Maybe some of us should reverse-engineer it. Surely it can't be as bad as NTF... er, uh, ... a certain other filesystem which has required reverse engineering to get it into Linux land.
-- R; <>< On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alan Altmark <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 01:36 EDT, "Dean, David (I/S)" > <david_d...@bcbst.com> wrote: >> Two excellent explanations by Mr. Troth and Mr. Laflamme, they are right >> on. Thank you. The sad part is we set this scenario up to overcome >> POLITICAL boundaries between I/S fiefdoms and showcase the technologies. >> We do not do this in production. >> >> Some of the guys still tics. > > In the interest of full disclosure, folks have tried for years to get us > to open up the low-level API into SFS. The trouble is that it is > extremely complex and was never *designed* to be public. It was > *designed* to be used by the CMS filesystem. Hence, there is no nice SFS > API Reference and User Guide laying around and no test cases to drive it > sans CMS filesystem. > > In other words, bringing the SFS low-level API into the light would cost a > lot of money with no measurable return on that investment. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
