Re: Y3K or not to Y3K

[Glenn Ericson <Glenn-Ericson@xxxxxxx>]

At 05:53 PM 02/06/2000 GMT, you wrote:
 >An interesting question was just asked here.  Why, on a brand new
 >application with no dates prior to Jan. 1, 2000 are we using an 8-digit
 >date?  L-Date fields are not relevant  -  this is an *M36 installation and
 >likely to remain so.
 >_______________________
 >Booth Martin
 >boothm@earth.goddard.edu
 >http://www.spy.net/~booth
 >_______________________
 >
 >+---
 > Booth  I  have no-clue.  Just a few thoughts.

Is the application design underneath  rely on  8 digit dates?

Do external interfaces/infrastructures seek  that format?

Is it a package  application, perhaps designed for universal
implementation  before during and after  01-01-2000?

Maybe the  disigner had to certify Y2K compliance,
regardless of   this  clients needs ?


________________________
Glenn Ericson,
Phoenix Consulting LLC
Ph.(718)898 9805  Fx .(718)446 1150
mailto:Glenn-Ericson@att.net
__________________________ 

+---
| 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
+---