Re: source control and file systems (was RE: SAA Historical perspecti ve)

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

Konrad,

On what did you base your IFS decision?
1)  Were you using a directory under QDLS?  That would be a performance
pig.
2)  Were you comparing accessing an IFS file with a client versus accessing
an IFS file with a native 5250 application?  5250-to-5250 would be EDTF
versus STRSEU.  Client-to-Client would be Code/400 on a IFS file via
NetServer versus Code/400 against a 'traditional' MYLIB/QPGMSRC file.

Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



                    Konrad
                    Underkofler             To:     "'rpg400-l@midrange.com'" 
<rpg400-l@midrange.com>
                    <kdunderk@hoshiza       cc:
                    ki.com>                 Fax to:
                    Sent by:                Subject:     source control and 
file systems (was RE: SAA Historical
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi        perspecti   ve)
                    drange.com


                    02/18/2002 05:35
                    PM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






Actually there is a usable grep without regular
expressions in FNDSTRPDM which will automatically
launch edit mode or print. And Diff can be simulated by
CMPPFM allowing compare/merge utilities to be built.

My big bone of contention is that source member
processing has not been changed much from the
System 38 days. It is still a pig on save restore
and delete. Plus the fact they never really added
nice make tools for ILE. Have they speeded up IFS
at all? In a former job I remember it as being
a real problem, but that was several hundred CPW
ago...

Green Screen Forever!

Konrad Underkofler