Peter Relson wrote: >I don't know what is being "assumed" or "understood", but most of this thread >is somewhat technically inaccurate. Some of that is perhaps terminology, some >not.
Thanks Peter. Now, please put your wisdom in IBM books. Like Shane, I also would like to congratulate you on your excellent explanations! Please keep it up! >VLF's only job is to manage a cache. I view that as doing "caching". What VLF >doesn't do is to decide what to put into the cache. That is left to each >exploiter. All VLF exploiters do this. True. Think of RACF and ISPF. Think of IRR803I for example. >Again terminology. Peter, perhaps you should redefine those terminologies in official IBM manuals. ;-) >If LLA finds that a module that it had successfully gotten cached no longer is >deemed worthwhile, it does not tell VLF. No? Why? Peter, many thanks for your good posts! I really appreciate them! Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
