RE: [WEB400] HTTP 500-more

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Nathan M. Andelin
>
> I seem to remember IBM asking CGI programmers to link to QZHBCGI
> rather than
> QTMHCGI at V4R2 (may have been earlier).  Apparently QTMHCGI is obsolete,
> starting with V5R1.  But it seems to me that we got the warning a
> long time
> ago.

Nathan, how did they ask?  Was there some sort of official statement?  I
would like to see some definitive documentation wherein IBM told people "all
your programs that used to use QTMHCGI now have to use QZHBCGI".  I see
nothing, and I've done some searching.  In fact, IBM's site still shows
examples of CGI programming using the QTMHCGI service program.

But even if you're right about this, Nathan, the situation is still
unacceptable.

Why is the service program obsolete?  Why not continue to have the service
program name stay the same?  That's like saying CRTRPGPGM is obsolete, or
the INFDS keyword.  Second, if it is obsolete, why is it still there?  If
you didn't find it, at least your programs would fail with a reasonable
"procedure not found" type of error, rather than the current situation.

You may argue that IBM is simply deprecating things, like Java.  Well, yes,
Java does it, but Java also pumps out a million deprecation messages when
you compile something.  The concept of making something obsolete isn't valid
unless you have some pretty good deprecation capabilities in place.  If IBM
wants to start obsoleting things like they do in Java, then there better be
some messages popping up in during a bind telling me I'm using a deprecated
API.

My opinion, but I've been developing software long enough to know that one
thing you miss when it's gone is backward compatibility.

Joe