In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/01/2005
at 03:19 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I suspect the need to handle things like long filenames and other new
>world stuff will doom these programs in the long term.
Probably, but it's the migration that I'm concerned with.
>Since z/OS suppor
Sorry about the belated response.
On 30 Jun 2005 14:58:54 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/29/2005
> at 08:40 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>Shmeul
>
>That's Shmuel!
I claim bad typing because I looked up one of your posts to get it
righ
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/29/2005
at 08:40 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Shmeul
That's Shmuel!
>For the rest of the points raised I am making the following
>assumptions and need to understand if they are correct.
No. PL/I supports BSAM.
>4 Few if any applications programs
uot;, no matter the locality of the data.
-Original Message-
From: Clark Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Transition requirements for new world was Re: z/OS future needs
was Re: USS in a "legacy" world
In the exchange
In the exchange below there is an important point about how we get
from where we are to where the system is going. Shmeul is saying we
will need a compatibility interface for BSAM and BPAM while I am
contending this won't be necessary. We may or may not be as far apart
as the discussion below ind
In the exchange below there is an important point about how we get
from where we are to where the system is going. Shmeul is saying we
will need a compatibility interface for BSAM and BPAM while I am
contending this won't be necessary. We may or may not be as far apart
as the discussion below ind
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/25/2005
at 11:32 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Since the actual hardware is FBA now and the magic is done in the
>controller, I see no need for the CKD oriented access methods to be
>ported to new style devices.
I wasn't suggesting new device-depende
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/26/2005
at 08:33 AM, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>All data is either UTF-32 text or binary
Why not provide for optionally storing data in the more compact UTF8
and UTF16? They could still be presented to the applications as UTF32.
You need the transfo
In a message dated 6/26/2005 9:33:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Never have competing architectures (zSeries, iSeries,
pSeries, etc. I still can't keep them all straight).
Just the SA series. Think of the cost savings. Think
of the simplicity.
How you going to p
Clark Morris wrote:
[snip]
The devil is in the details. I agree that changes to name lengths and
use of Unicode will require drastic changes to the BCP but the
combination of FBA and name length and character set changes will have
a drastic impact on the JESs.
The most important questions ar
On 24 Jun 2005 15:26:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/23/2005
> at 02:12 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>In regard to the legacy code, ten years ago I might have agreed with
>>you and argued for a compatibility interface. Since the FBA
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/23/2005
at 02:12 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In regard to the legacy code, ten years ago I might have agreed with
>you and argued for a compatibility interface. Since the FBA change
>would be part of an overall revolutionary set of changes requirin
On 21 Jun 2005 13:11:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/20/2005
> at 09:31 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>1. There must be a path from EBCDIC to either Unicode or the full
>>ISO 10646 character set for all scripting languages, compiler s
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/20/2005
at 09:31 PM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>1. There must be a path from EBCDIC to either Unicode or the full
>ISO 10646 character set for all scripting languages, compiler source,
>internal names, etc.
Yes, preferably with transparent handling
In a message dated 6/21/2005 11:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not through this forum.
>>
Yeah, too much fertilizer!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send ema
...
> A very nice summary of some of the most glaring problems.
>
> But will anyone at IBM listen...
...
Not through this forum.
Try SHARE, or other accepted means of asking for changes.
-teD
(The secret to success is sincerity.
If you can fake that,
you've got it made!)
---
On Jun 21, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
SNIP-
A very nice summary of some of the most glaring problems.
But will anyone at IBM listen...
Joe (or anyone):
Would you like to add to the list?
Ed
-
On Jun 20, 2005, at 8:31 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
1. There must be a path from EBCDIC to either Unicode or the full ISO
2. Given that 54 gigabytes is a relatively small disk drive in the
3. The limitation to eight characters for names and passwords (44
4. A clearer direct batch submission lang
On 15 Jun 2005 04:54:55 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Think back to 1989, when someone recognized that MVS could not bid on
>govenment contracts due to the lack of POSIX functions required by some
>FIPS standard. So they (IBM managment) asked for volunteers in MVS
>development to w
19 matches
Mail list logo
