>Now, please put your wisdom in IBM books. I think that most of my post was discussing internal details that are not suitable for documentation (where by documenting them, customers and programmers are allowed to rely on them, which in turn may hamstring future desire to change). If there are particular pieces that would really help customers if we document them, I'll listen to requests for them (which should include at least a hint of how it will help).
>>If LLA finds that a module that it had successfully gotten >>cached no longer is deemed worthwhile, it does not tell VLF. >No? Why? Not having been involved in the initial implementation, I'm not sure. Perhaps it was felt that doing so would be overkill, that trimming would do a good enough job such that the overhead of doing the "delminor" was not worth the cycles. It also makes it less flexible -- if there are subsequent fetches, LLA might be able simply to mark its data as "active" and not have to re-cache the module. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
