On 7 Nov 2013 10:38:24 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >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?
I worked with at least 1 Unix shell that allowed the specification of file name to be in the batch script. Those who know UNIX/LINUX are better able to describe how this is done. Clark Morris > >Tony H. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
