>I still see sites using LNKLSTxx, but I don't see sites using IEAAPFxx >anymore. As far as why, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A statement >from IBM that LNKLSTxx is deprecated could incentivize the switch. Can >you write a health check to encourage conversion from LNKLSTxx to PROGxx?
We're unlikely ever to get rid of LNKLSTxx fully (for the most part, the support is just there and does no harm and requires no updates). We "could" write a health check, but that would have to follow or accompany a "recommendation", and might not be worth the effort. If you're not utilizing the dynamic capabilities, for most cases, there is no benefit to moving from LNKLSTxx to PROGxx (other then prettier syntax). The new function I'm looking into will be the first such case that comes to mind where it will be beneficial. So there will be an incentive for those wanting the new function. 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
