Using API's ?

[bvining@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

That would be around the right time frame.  Prior to V3R1 IBM had no
formal support for OS/400 provided header files (they were shipped in
QUSRTOOL as-is and no real standards were in place for their creation);
but this changed in V3R1 with the formally supported QSYSINC option of
OS/400.  Due to the application of standards within QSYSINC there was
some breakage when moving API includes from QUSRTOOL to QSYSINC; and to
help in this movement QUSRTOOL continued to ship the previous includes
until V3R2 and V3R6.

Since V3R1 API users of QSYSINC should not have experienced problems
with the various includes except where there were bugs found (and
corrected) and unfortunate initialization problems such as when moving to
releases where previously Reserved fields were now being used (and the
Reserved field either "disappeared" or had its allocation decreased).
Note that this is not to say users have not had release to release
problems/considerations; but rather that most of these concerns have
involved API usage and not the include files themselves.

Bruce Vining

>
>Yes either 2.3 or 3.0.5 sounds about right and there were only a very few
>APIs available. I agree that now the APIs seem to be really stable and that
>backward compatiblity seems to be addressed. It's just one of those cases of
>"once bitten twice cautious".
>
>Thanks
>Eric
>

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---