> Would the XML parser create and read the necessary structure? No. You need control blocks in storage and a way for SDSF to update them when you invoke it. REXX provides such an interface when you invoke SDSF through its REXX interface, but to do the same from outside REXX you'd need to duplicate the infrastructure. Of course, IBM could add support to SDSF to do the equivalent for non-REXX callers, but I won't hold my breathe.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2019 5:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SDSF API question -- why only REXX & Java? Would the XML parser create and read the necessary structure? If not, I think it could be modified for the different syntax needed. On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:13 PM Clark Morris <cfmt...@uniserve.com> wrote: > > [Default] On 28 May 2019 09:51:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote: > > >The Sun is hot. ADDRESS LINKMVS is not relevant to the REXX support in SDSF, > >which does something that ADDRESS LINKMVS does not address. Until such time > >as COBOL supports associative arrays that a subroutine can update, those > >facilities will not be available from COBOL. > > I assume you mean that a COBOL has to be able to CALL 'X' with a USING > or RETURNING phrase that has the right pointers to a associative array > and that COBOL has to be able to set up that array for either the > USING phrase of the call or the RETURNING phrase of the CALL. After > having read the wiki definition I am confused enough that I would need > to see an Assembler description of an associative array to determine > whether either the IBM Enterprise COBOL 6.2 or the 2014 Standard COBOL > with data types not in IBM COBOL would allow to me to describe the > associative array with complete accuracy. The 2002 and 2014 Standards > for COBOL have all of the data types necessary to completely describe > SMF records such as USAGE BIT and USAGE BINARY-CHARACTER. (IF USAGE > BIT seems esoteric, I had to deal with bit switches on my company's > customer, product and open account files.) > > Getting back to the original issue, can a COBOL CALL statement for > dynamic CALL invoke SDSF and can it pass the needed data areas and > accept them? I think that even IBM COBOL is more powerful than most > people realize and the newer standards (2002 and 2014) are leaps > forward in capability (like being able to handle the various types of > decimal rounding only 40 years after the need arose or bit switches > 30+ years after at least some shops started using them in > applications. > > Clark Morris > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
