Gerhard > You don't have to explain it to them, nor do you have to justify your actions.
Actually, you do - both. The customers are paying for you and your family - very likely - to exist on this earth and they deserve every consideration that you can offer them. I have spent a lot - a lot - of time dealing with an arrogant vendor - now subsumed into IBM - who would not explain an sequence of logic that - with a lot of work - could be deduced but was diametrically at odds with architecture and intended and accepted practice. I wasn't even getting to the point where I was dealing with someone like Charles Mills who was actually responsible for the sequence so that I could pass on what I had discovered. Had I managed to make my through the impenetrable supposedly technical bureaucracy, I would have made sure that the aberration was understood and, having been understood, was at least highlighted very clearly in the documentation so that necessary customisation could support it. What is even more galling is that a lunch on the morning the problem was first raised, my principle technical colleague at the customer and I somewhat jokingly agreed on the probable cause of the problem. Weeks later we were proved to have been right for the wrong reasons but it took the intervening weeks to be sure of the unthinkable - all because the vendor was *not* explaining what they were doing. > You're simply taking the choice away from them regardless of what they code and doing it properly. Such an action *has* to be documented - close to where (supposedly) "doing it properly" is documented. Chris Mason On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:31:58 -0800, Gerhard Adam <[email protected]> wrote: >I'm not sure I'm interpreting this properly, but it sounds like you have a >product and want to support what your customers do when accessing a PDS >(even if they code it badly). My confusion comes from your reference to the >JFCB, since it suggests that you are checking to see what they have coded, >instead of simply overriding whatever they have coded with the proper >disposition. Since you have the JFCB, just set the DISP and issue an OPEN >TYPE=J and be done with it. That way it doesn't make any difference what >they have coded (since whatever they have coded shouldn't make any >difference anyway). > >You don't have to explain it to them, nor do you have to justify your >actions. You're simply taking the choice away from them regardless of what >they code and doing it properly. > >>I've found the immediate problem. Where my code apparently really should be >>testing for NEW or MOD it was testing only for MOD, and as JCL apparently >>populates JFCBIND2 with NEW (x'C0') for both NEW and MOD my code was >failing >>for both cases. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
