From: arne@vajhoej.dk

On 8/16/2025 4:29 PM, Robert B. Carleton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:06:50 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2025 2:00 PM, Robert B. Carleton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 09:48:25 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> For non-Rdb usage there are no license or technical reasons to prefer
>>>> OCI over  AWS, Azure or GCP.
>>>
>>> As an aside, How many non-Rdb users never moved off of using RMS in
>>> their applications? It seems like some of those would be candidates for
>>> moving to the cloud.
>>
>> I assume you mean RMS index-sequential files.
> I did.
>>
>> There must be a lot. If I were to guess then it is still the most common
>> VMS persistence technology.

> I'm not much of a coder, but I assume that rewriting code already using
> index-sequential files would be a non-starter for some. Maybe VSI can
> maneuver this situation into something like IBM has with their data sets.
> New development incrementally modernizing these systems, rather than
> replacing them.

Index-sequential files in Pascal, Basic and Cobol are pretty
slick in my opinion.

What type of modernization do you want?

I can a few things:
1) A decent C API (direct RMS calls sucks as API)
2) Get rid of 32K limit - but that will likely require a new file system
3) Add transaction support begin/commit/rollback to API

Arne

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)