On 2019-10-07 2:06 AM, Jon Perryman wrote:
I'm saying that IBM can't fix this problem because the problem lies with Unix
shell design.
I have no idea what you're talking about!
IBM can and have fixed the problem! BPXBATCH is so bad they wrote a
replacement AOPBATCH which works just as Kirk describes.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.aokfa00/batdd.htm#batdd
https://dovetail.com/products/cozbatch.html
Copying STDPARM to FD0 ( Unix stdin or pipe to stdin) is not an acceptable
solution because commands and programs may consume the script. Script files do
not get consumed. The mangled command does not get consumed.
Creating a script file really is not a good option. Unique file names and
finding a directory for the script file can be a problem. Ensuring the script
file is deleted at script termination could be a problem. I'm sure there are
other problems that would need to be resolved.
Additionally, there are many shells available. All shells support passing a
single line of commands which is the interface designed specifically for
situations such as BPXBATCH. Sadly, shell design doesn't give us the best
solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
