RE: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

Joe,

Going back to the origin, I think he is basing it on the fact that 
interactive does not support threads but batch does.  He's trying to 
figure out why interactive has this limitation.  I guess if it's on OS/400 
we'll call it a limitation, but if it's on Windows we'll call it a bug.

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/04/2005 09:53 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion






> From: Steve Richter
> 
> as I understand it, the reason interactive jobs dont
> allow threads is because the underlying OS400 code is too buggy to be
> made threadsafe.

What exactly do you mean by buggy?  There are actual faults in the code
today?  Or there are design issues that prevent making the code
threadsafe?  (These are two completely different things, by the way.)
Furthermore, who told you this?  Someone who worked on the code?  Or is
currently working on the code?  Have you actually seen ANY of this first
hand?  Have you written programs that fail?  Have you submitted PMRs to
address specific issues? 

Or are you just repeating whatever you might have heard second-hand?
(We call this the Dan Rather school of journalism.)

Joe

-- 
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.