On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Matthias Feyerabend wrote:

> In "Using the API Interface" it is noted and by experience we could
> verify that
>
>    "Only the API can restore or retrieve objects that have been backed up
>     or archive with API calls."
>
> This is a major drawback for our plans. We wanted to take advantage of
> the API (input from tape, better performance, runs on VMS) and standard
> ADSM client (GUI, etc) and combine the two.

I have heard the same problem from another customer. It means in fact that
*there* *is* no API. An API would be an application interface to the
*same* functionality. There is another -- possibly related -- problem in
ADSM:  Data archived with one client (e.g. Windows) cannot be retrieved
with another client (e.g. Unix). I see absolutely no sense in such
restrictions which invalidate ADSM as archive: what value does an archive
have if the data depend on the availability of the system that wrote it?
Of course, if you read the data with a different system, you might have
problems to interpret them but that is a problem ADSM should not care
about. ADSM should hand out the same bits (in the same order) that were
stored no matter whether they make sense to anybody.

We, too, consider it of high priority that these two bugs be fixed asap.
Documenting the bugs ("a documented bug is a feature") is not enough.

 ============================================================================
Dr. Helmut Richter
Leibniz-Rechenzentrum     X.400:  S=Richter;OU=lrz;P=lrz-muenchen;A=d400;C=de
Barer Str. 21            RFC822:  Helmut.Richter AT lrz-muenchen DOT de
D-80333 Muenchen           Tel.:  ++49-89-2105-8785
Germany                     Fax:  ++49-89-2809460
 ============================================================================