Re: LPP Bunding: Advanced Job Scheduler?

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:53 AM Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think whether or not to bundle in AJS would be a good idea was a recent discussion. Here it is:
Simplified IBM i Stack Bundling Ahead Of Subscription Pricing - IT Jungle<https://www.itjungle.com/2022/05/16/simplified-ibm-i-stack-bundling-ahead-of-subscription-pricing/>

Wow. OK then. I have to say, though IBM is often frustrating, and
moves a lot slower than some of us would like, the direction it's
generally ambling toward is one that I think most of us would approve
of.

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:29 AM Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If AJS is bundled in, would you continue to use the regular job scheduler? If so, why?

I think plenty of shops would. My current shop definitely would. Their
reasons include (and please understand I do not *endorse* them, I'm
just listing them):

1. Didn't know AJS existed.
2. Current scheduling arrangement already works well enough.
3. Limitations of the basic scheduler are worked around easily enough
with programming.
4. Already familiar with basic scheduler interface.
5. Not much benefit to importing *all* basic scheduler jobs into AJS
right off the bat.

I think a sensible approach, particularly for small, traditional
shops, is to gradually migrate. It would be similar to the migration
from RPG III to RPG IV. If you have to adjust something, take that
opportunity to upgrade to AJS.

If your question is: "would you continue to create *new* job schedule
entries in the basic scheduler?" the answer is that some people
inevitably will, just as some people continue to write new RPG III
programs, even at shops where others in the team have stopped doing
so.

John Y.