Vern,
Well put. I do want to point out that one of our .NET developers (heavy MS SQL knowledge) is the person that put in the requirement -- not an IBMi native. Also, he did not have any inside information (or he would have probably put it in four years ago). The point I think I am trying to make is that we could probably do a better job "keeping up with the Joneses' roadmaps." Having said that, I'm guessing IBM has their nose to the ground (or spies in high places).
I've brought this concept up before, but it never seems to get much traction. In the past when we held all the cards, it was OK to keep the blinders on, but that time has passed. When you get to the final four, you absolutely have to know your opponent's every strength and weakness.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Hamberg [mailto:vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Temporal support in DB2 for i - a perspective
I was looking at some requirements today on the CAAC site (not public, sorry, due to NDA issues).
There was a requirement asking for temporal support to be added, dated last June, that we brought over from COMMON, #347.
And now we have it - which is very cool!
So I want to suggest a perspective to this - maybe everyone gets this, and maybe not.
1. At the time the requirement showed up on COMMON, we brought it over to CAAC - we knew that temporal support had been planned for some time and took the opportunity to join the fray and be able to report something delivered by IBM.
2. I mentioned "planned for some time" - on a personal front, I attended meetings with IBM when working for and ISV, and temporal support was brought up __at least 4 years__ ago.
So a perspective - IBM are delivering things in what looks faster and more responsive to industry changes - some of these have been planned for some time, others are done more quickly - see the OPS open source offering now. The teams are finding ways to be more responsive to our rapidly-changing world.
So to add, I suggest we remember that new features and capabilities don't just pop out of thin air - they've been on the table sometimes for several years. A thing like temporal support required underlying support to change, as I recall, so when it can be delivered depends on other parts of the platform. It could not be done with a technology refresh, had to be a major release change. And there is always the issue of resources available to do the work.
Let us keep a broader view of what IBM announces - I guess that's the bottom line I've come to, both from being inside the walls for a year in 2001, testing the new query engine, and having the privilege to serve on a couple councils and hearing something about the decision process involved.
Thoughts?
Vern
--
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.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.
midrange.com
