Re: Temporal support in DB2 for i - a perspective

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good points, Justin - IBM tends to be very closed on things - it's often 
cast at a legal level, I think - if they state something they are 
working on, they kind of have to get it out there. Something like that - 
grossly misstated, I', sure!!

You've probably seen the disclaimers - even when something IS hinted at, 
there's the one that says nothing is promised by this posting!! It might 
not happen.

Cheers
Vern

On 4/14/2016 11:30 AM, Justin Dearing wrote:
> Vern,
>
> I agree that yes IBM is working very hard to deliver change to the IBM i,
> and these changes don't come out of thin air. Same as many other big
> players. I have more skin in the game on the Microsoft Side of things, so I
> could share similar stories there.
>
> Its great that IBM has a degree of transparency, and lets COMMON host a
> mechanism for feature requests. I think though that pushing for more
> transparency, is a good thing, and would make us more patient.
>
> The Microsoft ASP.NET team has a weekly standup meeting that is publicly
> broadcast (https://live.asp.net/). Now I'm sure a lot of that information
> is vetted. However,  that covers a large swath of the Microsoft Stack, and
> its a radical level of transparency.
>
> So yes I agree, we need to be patient, reasonable, and polite in our
> feedback mechanisms. We need to be aware that there aren't thousands of
> people in Rochester working on the OS, its a handful. We also need to
> remember the almighty dollar dictates a lot. A few really large customers
> wanting a feature will get it implemented.
>
> However, at the same time, we need to push for more transparency. Some
> stuff will be NDA. I mean Microsoft's recent announcements of SQL Server on
> Linux and Ubuntu subsystem were super NDA. However, for something like
> temporal tables, when its a matter of LUW and z/OS has something when do we
> get feature parity, that makes perfect sense for "we're working on that"
> levels of transparency
>
> Justin.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:53 AM Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > I was looking at some requirements today on the CAAC site (not public,
> > sorry, due to NDA issues).
> >
> > There was a requirement asking for temporal support to be added, dated
> > last June, that we brought over from COMMON, #347.
> >
> > And now we have it - which is very cool!
> >
> > So I want to suggest a perspective to this - maybe everyone gets this,
> > and maybe not.
> >
> > 1. At the time the requirement showed up on COMMON, we brought it over
> > to CAAC - we knew that temporal support had been planned for some time
> > and took the opportunity to join the fray and be able to report
> > something delivered by IBM.
> >
> > 2. I mentioned "planned for some time" - on a personal front, I attended
> > meetings with IBM when working for and ISV, and temporal support was
> > brought up __at least 4 years__ ago.
> >
> > So a perspective - IBM are delivering things in what looks faster and
> > more responsive to industry changes - some of these have been planned
> > for some time, others are done more quickly - see the OPS open source
> > offering now. The teams are finding ways to be more responsive to our
> > rapidly-changing world.
> >
> > So to add, I suggest we remember that new features and capabilities
> > don't just pop out of thin air - they've been on the table sometimes for
> > several years. A thing like temporal support required underlying support
> > to change, as I recall, so when it can be delivered depends on other
> > parts of the platform. It could not be done with a technology refresh,
> > had to be a major release change. And there is always the issue of
> > resources available to do the work.
> >
> > Let us keep a broader view of what IBM announces - I guess that's the
> > bottom line I've come to, both from being inside the walls for a year in
> > 2001, testing the new query engine, and having the privilege to serve on
> > a couple councils and hearing something about the decision process
> > involved.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Vern
> > --
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> >
> > Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
> > questions.