Ash,

IBM has a few different ways of suggesting their future plans.

An announcement normally comes about 6 months before a release or version. At version 3, IBM was criticized by us users for having too short an interval, which prevented us from going steadily between releases. At other times, we have criticized them for having too long intervals, which forced us to implement PUT-levels over large numbers of regions and made migration more difficult. They have been asking users at conferences to hear what was acceptable, and it seems like there is concensus between IBM and users that 18 months is currently ok - corresponding to three OS/390 releases.

They have had three releases of TS version 1 alias CICS version 5. I would not be too surprised to find the next release become a version. IMS and DB2 are at version 6 now too, you know.

Another way of suggesting the future is a "statement of direction". We have had a statement of direction about the DASD logger at a time, when CICS were ready for it, but OS/390 were not. I don't think there is any of these active for the moment. A statement of direction could be indicative of delivery in a timeframe of a couple of years.

Take none of these points as anything else than my personal guesses, please. Don't repeat them in court.

The "Trends and directions" can be any amount of time. We heard about long TS Q names five or six years ago - they were delivered in Spring 1999 at 1.3.

Listening to trends and directions at the present time could vaguely indicate the remote possibility of guessing at stuff in an indeterminate future like improved Java support (meaning a faster virtual machine and EJB support), improved integration with LE/370 (to make it look like any other language in logs, dumps etc.), batch and CICS VSAM update logged and coordinated by OS/390 services at some point in time when OS/390 is ready, and Distributed Program Link over TCP/IP like we have over APPC.

Another way of delivering changes is by PTF. In general they don't want to do it, and I can understand that, since releases would be "fuzzy" and support from change team would be much more difficult than with clear cut releases. But a number of features like new API's in the CICS Web Interface, Java improvements, and the Web interface to CICSPlex have been delivered this way within the last half year.

Still, take none of these points as anything else than my personal guesses, please.

If they put anything like this in writing they are afraid of be dragged to court if they happen to find out, that it is not technically or economically possible to do - or if they change their plans for some other reason. Therefore you have to be in the conference rooms, listen closely, and make your own assumptions.

Also there are different opinions within IBM, like we have seen them on IMS and CICS for years, and that might change what is being delivered from what was vaguely indicated. The many ways into CICS from a Web browser probably have different groups of adherents - as I and others are having our personal preferences for the CICS Web Interface - and that could affect the development. Also pressure from user groups or from some very large customers can influence their plans. Currently I find IBM rather open for what the users want to see, especially compared with how they were in the past.

The only clear statement that can be made is that they are developing CICS in two main directions: Sysplex exploitation, and Web enablement with focus on Java and on Business Transaction Services.

If I have said anything that was wrong, I am always willing to repeat it, but please: Don't sue me for my personal guesses!

And if you do not have a CICS user group in India, you should consider changing that. I think that Hursley people will happily go anywhere in the world to talk to and listen to users if a sufficient number are present.

Best regards, Michael Michael Erichsen CSC Computer Management Copenhagen, Denmark Voice: (+45) 36 14 63 44; Fax: (+45) 36 14 69 02