<Thread drift> I see a lot of design issues with trying to do magic DD overrides. What about products that check the TIOT for a DD's existence? Do they see the actual DD name or the name they expect to see? What does SVC 99 info retrieval reflect?
If you target just the average application OPEN, how useful is it? How many people want to run three simultaneous copies of the AR program? The very programs you might want to attach as sub-tasks are the ones that are likely to be using the TIOT and SVC 99 I/R. </Thread drift> Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: You've got to be kidding me! (Enterprise COBOL V5.1 DD overrides) On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:58:24 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Agreed on both points. (And failing that, c'mon man, how about a little >consistency?) > >Built into ATTACH would be a big architectural deal. > >But keywords are easy! > Tom Ross's explanation of the problem provides a powerful argument for keywords over positional. (It was a mistake; there's really no problem; it just looks that way.) "... architectural deal." But better that than to replicate the code to process the alternate DDNAME list in an unbounded number of utilities, both from IBM and from ISVs, and to have the feature unavailable in products that don't choose to implement it. (Consistency, again. And the DRY principle.) Years ago in one of these lists a contributor claimed to have accomplished much of the function (he admitted not all) with SVC screening. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
