Yeah, and world peace, too. <g> On a more serious note, you can get from any of the IBM DSECTs to C/C++ headeers by using the IBM C Compiler-included CDSECT utility.
I just Googled <convert C struct to perl> and got a number of hits, so I would guess IBM DSECT to any of the languages you mention is do-able, if not pretty. You might object that IBM C is a separately charged product, but it uses the ADATA output of the assembler, which is documented. I don't think it would be real hard to write a DSECT to any arbitrary data schema program, especially if it were for your own use and you could tolerate a 90% job. Hey, there's a product for you: a DSECT to XML schema converter. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 12:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SMF (was: REXX tutorial) (on SMF "schemas") I think that it would be useful to consider processing SMF data in other languages, like Perl, Python, System/R, C, etc. If you had record schemas you could generate the language bindings. Although not readily available on z/OS, any of these languages/tools could be run on z Linux, which also has the advantage moving general processor usage. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Kirk Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > Even better if the SMF records were uniformly described by some > metadata format (schema) that described the fields in the record. > Consider the IBM SMF record DSECTS - one has to look at the field > comments to determine not only structure (e.g. triplets) but also > whether some C fields are really character or numeric, dates, times, etc, etc. > > Much better would be if IBM published some sort of metadata / schema, > perhaps in XML, that had all of the information in the DSECT, but also > included structure, data types, etc. Utilities could be used to convert > these into record / DSECTS in assembler or HLLs. It wouldn't have to be > XML so long as there were a defined grammer, standard data types, etc. > > If done properly so as to include comments for each field, this would > also cover 90% of the necessary "documentation" requirements. > > Currently, the closest thing to SMF schemas are in MXG (SAS). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
