RE: WHAT was IBM THINKING?!?!?, Re: QSYGETPH API

Forget CPYFRMIMPF, that one hit us hard!  All of our products used it in a
fashion incompatible with the V5R3 change.  IIRC, there was a PTF (or data
area?) that would revert to V5R2 behavior for 6 months or so, to give
vendors time to update their products.

As for why, I believe the official word was enhanced security.  It sort of
made sense to me after I re-read it a few times.

That said, IBM did list it in memo to users, and that was the only API we
encountered that was backwards incompatible.  In that respect even with this
exception noted, IBM is light years ahead of Microsoft.

Elvis

-----Original Message-----
Subject: WHAT was IBM THINKING?!?!?, Re: QSYGETPH API

What in the <censored> was IBM thinking when they broke 
the <blasphemy> <obscenity> <vulgarity> QSYGETPH API in 
V5R3, such that it now requires <censored> parameters that 
didn't even <censored> exist when the API was first 
defined?

Have they somehow forgotten the basic <censored> concept 
of an API? Have they somehow forgotten that an API, by 
definition, is a fixed, documented system call that can be 
trusted not to change in any way that would break existing 
code? Or have they suddenly decided to act like 
<blasphemy> Microschlong, and tell all outside commercial 
product developers to <obscenity> <anatomically improbable 
bodily function>?

--
JHHL