RE: 250 libraries. a solution?

>If you stick with 25 or fewer libraries in the user portion of the library
list 
>you won't have an issue.

And if one of your vendors decides to move to 26+ libraries?

>There is also a serious question regarding application design if you need
more 
>than 25 user libraries.

Ain't THAT the truth!

All in all, I can't envision any other way IBM could have approached this
change.  All library list related code is broken and needs to be fixed and
that's that.  Y2K has weeded out most of the companies without source code
and there just aren't that many places in a normal application where you
manipulate the library list.

I respect Al Barsa, but I don't understand the level of his alarm on this
topic.

Cheers!
Buck
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---