What is a reasonable time to resolve an issue?

Today, I experienced a bug whilst building a wide screen definition in 2E.  The build was okay but when I went to use it (in the 2E device design editor), I was getting some low-level errors.

Upon googling the error, I came across this ticket which gave a few workarounds, one of which I implemented.

The given workarounds were:-

1. Set the screen footer to 25 as per the screen print. 
   
2. Set the subfile page size for consuming functions explicitly.  I am assuming they mean…
   
3. Override the YSFLEND model value to *PLUS and not *TEXT or override it in the consuming function via F7=Function Options
   
   
   
   

All of these appear to be perfectly good reasons to postpone fixing this issue up within the product as I am guessing...

• many use the + for subfile,  
• many also forget to move the command line down to row 26 anyhow when creating and generating wide screens (they leave it at 23) and then wonder why they have a 3 row gap at the bottom of their screens 😊

Is it okay though, that 15 years after it was raised, it is still an issue…..?

Thanks for reading.
Lee.

Multi-Line Edit Oddities

Hiya,

Today I helped a colleague (a very talented one at that) with a small issue around a PMTRCD and usage of multi-line edit for oversized fields.  Something he hadn't seen before.

He was confused as to why his data entry field was showing on the device design and not showing when executed.

Figure 1 shows a mock up of his device design looking pretty standard.

Figure 2 shows the same screen at run-time.  Note the cursor has positioned to the field acting strangely but the underline is not showing.

If you want to recreate this issue I created a file as follows (See Figure 3 and 4) :-

 

Additionally, in the device design we set the long field to multi-line Y and set it to 4 rows and 50 wide.

To resolve the issue was a case of applying a (clearly little known) trick of moving the multi-line field over by one byte.  (Figure 5) 

 

This then allows the run-time screen to paint properly. (Figure 6)

My assumption is that the screen attributes are being corrupted by the multi-line although comparing the source for the DDS didn't highlight anything untoward so I am guessing it is a 5250 issue.  (I also recommend aligning the rest of the fields on the screen.)

Any takers on providing the technical explanation? as a compare source doens't seem to highlight a clear and present danger. (Figure 7)

I've always nudged these over by an extra byte for years and years but I guess some tips and tricks get lost.

Thanks for reading.
Lee.

The magic roundabout....

“Computer Associates (CA), where products go to die!”

If you were around in the late 90’s and early noughties, the statement above was industry standard and after a brief rename to the COOL range from Sterling Software prior to the CA acquisition in 2000 the tools known as Synon (now CA 2E) and Obsydian/Plex (now CA Plex) have been maintained and supported by CA.

Correction from above…. CA did in fact (the early years) innovate with the tools quite frequently and with good features and enhancements.  CA were responsible for the introduction of the Web Option, Triggers, RPGILE Generator, numerous SQL’s updates and Web Services for 2E as well as .NET Generator for CA Plex (no small feat), Web Services publication and consumption as well as keeping up with a myriad of technology platform refreshes Plex required. 

All in all, a reasonable job. 

Perhaps a 6 out of 10.

Okay, 5.

The point being that these products didn’t go to CA to die. However, in recent years with development budgets reduced and key personnel leaving the rate of change has stalled significantly.  So much so that nowadays a release highlight are items that would have been reserved for minor features or even bug fixes in years gone by.

Whilst the tools haven’t died they are clearly in maintenance mode.  CA moved this group of products to sustaining engineering.  This has a negative context whilst a product is in decline and I feel that other low-code options with better target platforms coverage have emerged into a space once dominated by case and code generation tooling.

Last week Broadcom announced a cash buyout of CA Technologies for over 18b dollars.

Broadcom doesn’t do software…they are a semiconductor business so what does CA provide them:-

1. They may be diversifying their offerings and product range.  Perhaps there are some key products in the CA range that assist in their growth or CA has strong alliances with certain business verticals or a client base the parent organisation may wish to gain access to.
2. Or this is purely a financial decision.  They may have too much cash to burn and need to spend it quickly.  They buy a solid company with a long and attractive maintenance trailing revenue stream and secure long term (almost guaranteed) recurring revenue.  Most likely this means they won’t need to pay any corporation tax for the next year or two as they assimilate this monster of a business.

Perhaps a mix of both but my money is on the second option and that this is merely a financially driven strategic purchase.  

There certainly isn’t any institutional importance for the CA development tools business i.e. CA 2E, CA Plex and CA Gen.  Although these areas are likely to show very high ROI i.e. cost vs revenue on the reporting charts I very much doubt they’ll get anymore focus than they there are currently getting.

Now it would appear, that the final resting place for these (once wonderful and genius) tools is going to be Broadcom.  The new statement being “Broadcom, a place where CA Technologies development tools go to die!”

STOP THE PRESS!!!!!!!

Hopefully not, I hope that the residual value and with opportunities in a safe pair of hands i.e. a company with a low code focus. It is possible to recapture the essence of CASE and reinvigorate these tools.

Probability?: < 10% if Broadcom don’t want to relinquish these tools.

Lee’s take out!

Sadly, it’s probably time to work out what the next big thing is… These tools are now compliance/maintenance focused (at best) and will be stabilised (cease to be supported) as soon as the revenue trail drops below x, whatever x is.  

x for CA or Broadcom is far higher than x for a passionate low-code only vendor.  I beg Broadcom to review the business units at CA and seek a buyer (at a fair price) so this technology has a chance to thrive once more.  These tools practically invented low-code.  In my eyes they are 20 years ahead of the rest.

Thanks for reading.

p.s. I wonder what theynew name will be....Broadcom Plex doesn't have that good a ring to it.....