On 7 November 2013 12:41, Richard Pinion <[email protected]> wrote: > And to throw another twist to this thread, some people say the LRECL and > RECFM should not be coded in the JCL. That way when a change is made to the > program source, that affects LRECL and/or RECFM, the corresponding JCL > doesn't have to be updated. What are some opinions about that methodology?
Taking that to the extreme one could say that nothing should be coded on DD statements, i.e. that programs should deal with DSNAMEs rather then the intermediary of DDNAMEs. Which is indeed how most non-z/OS systems work. The late binding provided by DD statements is one of the strongest, if clumsiest, things about OS/360 and its descendants. Why should this not apply to LRECL, RECFM, and the other DCB parameters as much as anything else? Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
