RE: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...

Joe, What it tells me is that the encapsulation that IBM is talking about
really is a just an operation to restore the source and recompile it. I have
done that when I have fat fingered a source member and deleted it.

The issue that is at stake here is why the vendors are not responding in a
more open way. Could it be that they want their current customer base to pay
the bill multiple times. Yes, this kind of short term profit mind set, does
tell why shops are converting to Oracle, etc. Companies like SSA Global and
Infor have bought up the legacy ERP products for the maintenance money and
not for future enhancements.

Regards,
Jack Derham

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark S. Waterbury
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:31 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...

Hi, Joe:

Or, you could have compiled it on V4R5 (or earlier) and then never
recompiled it since then.

And then, if you (foolishly) removed observability, you lose.

Mark

Joe Pluta wrote:
Don wrote:

Joe,

Please clarify. As I'm reading this, you say no observability since
4.5...but from what I'm hearing from IBM, even though observability was
removed in the 5.1-4 range, it was still "there" for upgrade

purposes...but

observability 4.5 and before was actual removal...ergo, if the

observability

factor was removed 5.1-5.4...there's no issue. Pre-5.1, there's a issue
potential... Is this what you intended to say?

Quoting IBM:

"Thus a program lacks sufficient creation data for conversion only if
the program or at least one of its modules was created for OS/400R V4R5
or an earlier release AND creation data was explicitly removed."

This tells me you had to compile back to V4R5 (which you could have done

from no later a release than V5R2) and then subsequently remove
observability.

Joe