On Monday, 11/24/2003 at 01:19 EST, "Post, Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that they are synonyms _now_. The problem is, they didn't > start out that way, and the lack of appropriate documentation to that effect > has caused problems in the field. (Perhaps only to me, but still....) > > I'm not saying that code changes need to be made (at this point), just > documentation changes. The long-term solution may be to remove the escon > device name entirely, but that's something that can happen down the road. I understand and I was agreeing with you. I was just taking issue with your implication that the ctc0/escon3 example from the book is wrong. The example is fine. It's just grossly misleading. Removing "escon" from the configuration documentation (not the code) would help in the short term, IMO. Footnote #7 on p.96 states "When using the channel device layer only, all CTC network devices are named ctc n , regardless of whether they are virtually defined or a real ESCON" but I find that a bit *too* obscure. In general, I would have to say that the relationship of device names and channel numbers (the 'n' suffix), and their relationship to *interface* names is something that could be better documented. FWIW, there is a Reader's Comment Form in the back of the book (but no e-mail address, maybe use [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
