Re: Anyone on V6R1.

Alan Campin wrote:

Bummer. I wonder why IBM holds on to that system when they
have the IFS with all of the problems they have with QSPL?

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Pete Massiello

NO, they still use QSPL libraries

Not sure what problems alluded.... And is that question asking why not use stream files instead of database file in QSPL because all of the problems with QSPL, or why not use stream files because those are equivalently problematic as QSPL ;-)

Unless a problem was specific to the implementation object, changing what object [type] is used would probably be moot in most cases.? What problem(s) would justify a rewrite from using database to stream I/O? If the common data management allowed a transparent redirect, then perhaps not a huge deal [i.e. effectively no change, but an override to STMF], but otherwise difficult to justify.

FWiW One reason database members had been used is because the spooling also supports job /spooling/ from fixed record length with support for *SRC & *DATA inline //DATA which of course are the two types of database physical file members. That part would probably remain unchanged even if the implementation object changed. IIRC there was also for some time an issue whereby stream file limits were too small to hold the largest spool files in one object; the original spool control block was designed to have one spool file entry to point to the description and data of each, with just the one pointer.

The database member implementation object also enables storing control information beyond just the /object/ information [e.g. owner, text, expiration, et al]. If stored in stream files, then all accesses would have to be binary anyhow, so those details could be stored before or after the actual spool data into the same space; the maximum amount of spool data in a file would be limited by the control information, but now that stream files can be so large, hardly a concern anymore. But if the control information were just stored in the data [instead of in the object], why not just rewrite the OS to work like a PC ;-)

Regards, Chuck