Hi Gil,
You said "...Many (but not all) users would find this unacceptable. ..."
I can easily argue this point. Many users would find it more convenient
to have separate ISPF environments for SandBox/Test/Dev/QA/Prod
(especially SysProgs).
Regards,
David
On 11/22/2024 16:09, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:18:36 -0500, David Spiegel wrote:
All? ... No, just the //ISPPROF which can be fixed by including the LPAR
name as part of the DSNAME. E.g. <userid>.ISPF.ISPPROF,<lpar-name>
Ouch! Profile changes on any LPAR would not be effective on other
LPARs. Many (but not all) users would find this unacceptable. It is no
better than assigning multiple User IDs.
But<https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=logons-duplicate> says:
ISPF profile sharing or changes to default ISPF data set names
might be needed to avoid errors in ISPF with multiple logons.
See z/OS ISPF Planning and Customizing for more details about
configuring ISPF to support multiple logons.
"profile sharing"
But the referenced document is an abstract containing
a circular reference. I'll submit a Feedback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
