On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:04:53 +0100, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote: >"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:<7cfb3a38-692b-465b-9af0-98ecb128a...@n18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>... >On Oct 31, 10:43 am, StevePratt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wouldn't it be easier just to scan the JOBs and pull out the PROC >> names? >> >> I guess I'm puzzled by the SMF approach. > >Unfortunately, for a lot of the jobs in question, there is no >permantly existing JCL, it is JCL created dynamically by programs and >dumped into the internal reader or JCL that comes in from outside >clients. Obviously for static JCL in our local libraries you are >right, we could just scan the jobs themselves. > Would it be feasible to use SDSF SJ (possibly via the Rexx API) to acess the JCL before the job is purged?
HLASM provides a MACRO and COPY member summary identifying the origin of copybook members. JCL would do well to provide likewise. Feels like a Requirement. But I'd prefer that JCL just go away. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
