Re: Question about COMPRESSALWAYS
1996-12-12 17:17:00
Text item: Body.822
I tested the COMPRESSALWAYS option as soon as level 5 came out on OS/2 and
it didn't to work. To understand the test results I went to IBMLink to
read the original apar text and it definitly seemed to say that support for
the syntax but not the function was being added.
I did a simple-minded test. Using the cmdline client I backed up one zip
file and got the same results with compressalways = yes or no -- the
transaction was ended when the file grew and then it was sent uncompressed.
Was there something wrong with my test? Actually, I hope so, because I
really want compressalways to be functional.
Could others test it too and report the results?
TIA,
Bill Colwell
The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory
Cambridge Ma.
_________________________Reply Header_________________________
Author: ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu
Subject: Question about COMPRESSALWAYS
12-12-1996 12:41 PM
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:41:45 PST
From: "David Derk (408-256-0267)" <derk AT vnet.ibm DOT com>
Subject: Question about COMPRESSALWAYS
To: Multiple recipients of list ADSM-L <ADSM-L AT vm.marist DOT edu>
The APAR was taken on the B/A client to ignore the API option
but the final fix in the client level 5 PTF was to support it.
The B/A client at level 5 now supports COMPRESSALWAYS=YES.
If it is set it will NOT end the transaction. It will send
the compressed version of the file to the server.
Bill is right the APAR text is poorly worded. I updated the
APAR abstract to be more accurate.
David Derk
ADSM Client Development
|
|
|