>I would like to see FILELISTs replaced (or augmented) with a shared file >system interface if any SP6 enhancements are made. What about the huge majority of BITNET sites which don't have a shared file system because it performs so poorly on large systems that IBM refused to release it? >but since a hierarchical file system is intrinsic to SP6 access I think >the SFS is a logical replacement for FILELISTs. Maybe, in 5 years or so, when and if SFS is available for all types of machines and everybody has migrated to a version of VM that supports it. For now, I'm afraid you'll have to forget it. >the increased ease of maintenance would be worth it as far as I'm >concerned. Why would it be easier to maintain? You still need a FILELIST file to define who is authorized to do what to the file. >Also, you can eliminate most of the overhead of trying to figure out >that file "A B" in FILELIST "C" is actually file "X Y" on the "W" disk. The files would still have to be stored under a different name, for security reasons (or rather, the mechanism for storing them under a different name would still have to exist for security reasons, so the overhead would still be there, even though the default mapping might become "same fileid"). Besides which, this particular overhead is negligible compared to the time it takes to find out in what filelist "A B" is defined when the user doesn't specify "C" and there are a lot of files available from the server. Eric