In <[email protected]>, on 02/19/2012
at 06:11 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" <[email protected]> said:
>Under Windows, a directory is closer functionally to the MVS/DOS
>concept of a VTOC, as each volume has its own directory
ITYM each volume has its own root directory; a typical DOS or 'doze
volume has many directories.
>and you have to somehow know which volume to consult
Much like MVS before IBM pulled the plug on user catalogs.
>But in either case they are obviously structurally different
Just like CVOL, VSAM catalog and ICF catalog were structurally
different from each other. Just like directories in FAT are
structurally different from directories in NTFS. Just like directories
in ext2 are structurally different from directories in reiserfs.
>finding an file entry in Windows or Linux requires a progressive
>search through multiple directory levels rather than just a
>single lookup of the full path name as with a data set name in an
>MVS catalog.
There is no "single lookup of the full path name" except in a shop
with no user catalogs, which you'd be hard pressed to find.
>And in both Windows and Linux, in many cases the user thinks of a
>file by its file name and not its full path, and the onus in on
>the user to remember under what directory the file was placed.
That's true for MVS as well.
>That issue does not arise in MVS
It certainly does.
>because dataset names are always referenced by the full name
No. In fact, there are cases where attempting to refer to a data set
by its full name will cause an error.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
