<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Whatever Happened to &#8220;Upgrade While Active&#8221;??</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/</link>
	<description>Thought-Provoking Commentary for the Lawson Software Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:23:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rajan</title>
		<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rajan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-94</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why not? If you can use multi-threading using application program, which I dont think is possible in Cobol, it could speed up the conversion. And cobol has the issue of &#039;taking-one-record-process-it-and take-next&#039; rather than select group of records and mass-update &#039;em.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not? If you can use multi-threading using application program, which I dont think is possible in Cobol, it could speed up the conversion. And cobol has the issue of &#8216;taking-one-record-process-it-and take-next&#8217; rather than select group of records and mass-update &#8216;em.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frito</title>
		<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-54</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you John... I was beginning to think it was me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you John&#8230; I was beginning to think it was me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Henley</title>
		<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Henley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-48</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry, I&#039;m just quoting Lawson, as they attributed the &quot;faster upgrade process&quot; as the reason for not needing Upgrade While Active.  

In my opinion, the sole performance improvement is that the copy programs now use &lt;em&gt;sqldbcopy&lt;/em&gt; which utilizes the database to do the copying process.

I agree with you that &quot;rewritten in Java&quot; alone would have zero performance impact.  The Java &quot;load&quot; programs still have roughly the same performance as their previous COBOL counterparts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I&#8217;m just quoting Lawson, as they attributed the &#8220;faster upgrade process&#8221; as the reason for not needing Upgrade While Active.  </p>
<p>In my opinion, the sole performance improvement is that the copy programs now use <em>sqldbcopy</em> which utilizes the database to do the copying process.</p>
<p>I agree with you that &#8220;rewritten in Java&#8221; alone would have zero performance impact.  The Java &#8220;load&#8221; programs still have roughly the same performance as their previous COBOL counterparts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frito</title>
		<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frito]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-47</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK John... please explain to me why &quot;rewritten in Java&quot; would imply any performance improvement.  I mean, how would the language make any difference.  I hear this kind of talk from these guys all the time and it just makes me laugh.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK John&#8230; please explain to me why &#8220;rewritten in Java&#8221; would imply any performance improvement.  I mean, how would the language make any difference.  I hear this kind of talk from these guys all the time and it just makes me laugh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Creeper</title>
		<link>http://blog.lawsonguru.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Creeper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawsonguru.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/whatever-happened-to-upgrade-while-active/#comment-38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I remember our 8.0 upgrade, it was very smooth and quick.  I can only hope this remains true for 9.0.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember our 8.0 upgrade, it was very smooth and quick.  I can only hope this remains true for 9.0.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

