Re: more FTPAPI questions

[Christian <chrisv5@xxxxxx>]

Sender: Christian <chrisv5@xxxxxx>

Scott Klement wrote:
> He said it was to preserve compatibility (since previous versions of 
> FTPAPI used the descriptor -- but this was because they didn't keep 
> track of sessions.)
>
> Personally, I don't think it's necessary to make the descriptor 
> available to the caller just passing the index should be sufficient.

Then I think we agree to change that behaviour, as it does not require 
re-binding (both values are of the same type).

> I could see putting them into a separate module to reduce clutter.  I 
> don't think taking them out of the existing srvpgm and putting them into 
> a separate one is a good idea -- everyone would have to re-bind their 
> programs, if not completely re-write them.  I've promised over and over 
> that FTPAPI will remain backward compatible, and I don't see the value 
> in breaking that compatibility.

I guess you do not see the value because you know FTPAPI inside out. 
Personally, I found it a bit of a bother to read through nearly 50% of 
deprecated APIs in search of what can be done with this tool.

I'll change the order of the header file (and accordingly the SRVPGM). 
Will put the current stuff at the front, make a Big and Clear enough 
separator telling that what follows is there just for the historians and 
those who never upgrade their programs in decades.

Regards,
Christian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the FTPAPI mailing list.  To unsubsribe from the list send mail
to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the body: unsubscribe ftpapi mymailaddr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------