<rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mailman.8157.1191254220.4459.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 - If you're going to lobby for others to submit their DCR's also then it
helps to post the DCR website:
https://www-912.ibm.com/r_dir/ReqDesChange.nsf/Request_for_Design_Change?OpenForm
Actually, my purpose in posting this was not just to garner support for the
DCR but in hopes that those of you that are responsible for the i5 O/S at
your shops will also call IBM support and express your
shock/concern/dismay/etc. at IBM's choice in the way they implemented the
handling of division by zero when no explicit handler is coded in an
ILE/COBOL program. In my experience with IBM, responding "submit a DCR" is a
pretty typical response to something like this. If enough customers voice
their concern it would carry much more weight.
For us, in the midst of a large migration project, this is very serious and
being told to
either 1) change all of the arithmetic statements in all of the programs to
add ON SIZE ERROR logic
or 2) wait until a DCR is accepted and implemented
is just not acceptable. I appreciate and echo Joe Pluta's comment:
... but I do think this is a serious issue, and here's why: I think the
future of the box rests on its integration abilities. There will always be
cheaper alternatives for single-purpose machines such as web servers or file
servers or whatever, but nothing matches the platform as an overall business
application engine. And this will make the box attractive from two
different perspectives: for companies trying to consolidate large numbers of
small servers onto a single easily-managed box, and for those moving from
expensive big iron down to boxes that can handle the load thanks to Moore's
Law.
midrange.com
