enrico-sorichetti wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:11 amdid You ever consider that Fusion might implement more facilities than FTP ?
Yes I did. There are just 2 use-cases I could identify for the Fusion in our shop:
- Send files across as is.
- Append the timestamp to the file name and send it across.
Other than that there is no other use-case I've seen and no stake holder has reported it yet. Yes, when the receiving server is not available it does not fail and shows a message in SYSOUT. But will it "retry", don't know. I'm checking on that.
On the other hand, we have the following facilities on our disposal for file transfer:
- FTP
- SFTP (we've USS)
- Fusion
- Connect: Direct
Two of them are pay-for-products (Fusion and C: D). Though possible but I've ruled out Fusion to Connect: Direct replacement - as I can not make all the receiving servers to run as nodes under C: D, that will be too huge a change. Thinking that, I thought may be FTP can be a good choice as a replacement but yes it's just an idea at the moment - I've some success and some failure. And as Robert has said before, a full analysis of the costs involved will require me to determine how much it would cost to find all the Fusion Software executions in jobs and replacing them with FTP, that's another side of it.
I am trying to figure out if it really worth the shot - your point is valid and I did consider that if we are really using a facility not covered by vanilla FTP and if the software exist only to transfer the files. Its maintenance is also a pain, for example - in Fusion, they had been using separate COBOL programs every time they want to append timestamp to the file to be sent, which can easily be done using EZACFSM1 before FTP. I am not sure why did they pick up a program to append timestamp and asking about it around does not get you an answer!