Re: CPYFRMIMPF Errors!

I do agree that it is a royal pain.  And should be considered a bug.  I 
argued, VERY EARLY ON, that IBM was totally underestimating the impact 
that these changes were having on their customers.  MUCH more than IASP's, 
or adding potential for more libraries to a library list. (wink, wink)
However IBM will not consider it a bug and insists we come up with 
alternatives to work around it.  Frankly, I'm exhausted on this.
Finally, I repeat what I said in my last email.  Don't count on any 
'workarounds' being there in the next release.

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





rick baird <rick.baird@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 02:14 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


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

Subject
Re: CPYFRMIMPF Errors!






Ron,

I couldn't agree with you more.

I've wasted a magnatude of 50 - time and effort - "fixing" previously
working applications that use CPYTO and FRMIMPF for this version than
fixing anything else that was ever wrong with all other version
upgrades in the last 10 years.

It's really pathetic.

Rick

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:15:50 -0600, ron_adams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ron_adams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This isn't so much a question as much as it is just a general complaint!
> 
> I use CPYFRMIMPF somewhat regularly for a handful of interface processes
> that have been developed over the years. With the release of V5R3,
> CPYFRMIMPF has become a real pain-in-the A**!!!
> Mind you, one of the issues I had with it was my own fault (specs 
between
> FDF and PF wrong), but it worked on prior versions. I've logged at least 
3
> of my problems with IBM and they have fixed one and pointed out the 
error
> on the other, but I still have one open, and then today, I find another
> problem that I can't seem to fix, but it works with the V5R2 version!
> 
> My complaint really is that they've taken a utility that once was stable
> and usable and broken it majorly! Luckily, for now at least, the option 
is
> available to force it to use the V5R2 version of the utility, which does
> work.
> 
> Ron Adams
-- 
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.