MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C9418A.5FFC91D0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C9418A.5FFC91D0 Content-Location: file:///C:/268DCC86/xpaf.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
LaserPrint Services Ltd<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:7'> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;



XPAF is NOT the same as XPFC/=
ROLO !!
Some fol=
k have
been considering XPAF as a replacement for XPFC ............... but this has significant hidden dangers/risks/liabilities !!
m=
XPFC
is basically a collection of standard and relatively straightforward JES2 <=
span
class=3DGramE>Exit's .............. you could almost describe it as =
a “plug-in”
....... conforming to all the relevant IBM operating system standards and
interfaces
Also ......… from=
the
very start ....... XPFC code was designed to co-=
exist
with other JES2 exits at the same points so no “Exit Interference=
8221;
Testing is easy too ....=
.....
XPFC may be installed and validated on the test Z/OS LP=
AR
.............. or if not possible, under a
Secondary JES2 ............... so it is isolated from the Production Regime=
m=
XPAF
is radically different and significantly more complex ....... it is a
Functional Sub-System (FSS) ........ so has
considerably more to do by way of managing the print d=
atastream
............ and the operating system interface is much more complex
m=
XPFC
was designed and implemented to allow a wide range of JCL coding standards =
for
printer controls to be retained…
Some customers were using IBM 3800 printer
controls (but not using AFP data-streams)
Some were using specific printer manufacturers software imposing certain JCL coding pra=
ctises
Some were using “shareware” and =
some
their own “in-house” developed solutions
The XPFC solution allowed Xerox printers to =
be
installed and existing JCL coding standards to remain thus avoiding any
unnecessary and time-consuming migration effort
m=
XPAF
has never addressed these user driven requirements ............ so migratio=
n to
XPAF will require either major changes to JCL coding standards (if this is
actually possible!!) or XPAF software enhancements .............. either way, migration could well be a tricky and
time-consuming exercise !!