On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 06:18:55 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >I am not clear on why you want a different HLQ. > Simply, because!
I was in this situation once. I created some data sets unaware that some of my colleagues were using a conflicting naming convention in several JCL members. I thought, easy enough: DEFINE ALIAS - (NAME(dsn.they.expected) - RELATE(name.I.created)) No. Catalog services looked for the data set in the catalog containing the alias, not the catalog where it was. I've been told that if catalog search did the obvious and re-drove the search starting with the catalog containing the RELATEd name, IPL would be impossible, or the universe would collapse into a black hole, whatever. I guess I'm too used to symbolic links on UNIX, which enforces no such relationship between the name of the link and the name of its target. On determining the target name, the search for it begins at root, not in the directory containing the link. >Perhaps the SYMBOLICRELATE might be more helpful. You can use Symbolics on >different LPARs but have the same dataset name used on all. > Does that allow the ALIAS and the RELATEd names to exist in different catalogs? Once, simply attempting to exploit the fact that symbolic aliases are not deleted when the RELATEd data sets are deleted, I tried to use a symbolic alias. I discovered that a symbolic alias requires that at least one substitutable symbol occur in the symbolic name. Again, my intent was thwarted. Silly rule. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
