On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:16:40 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: > >>Just a question out of sheer curiosity: what do you mean by "GDG type >>naming capabilities?" Are you talking about being able to have date/time >>as part of the generation name or some such? > >There is no equivalent of PROD.FILE(+1) for an ESDS. The current >implementation of changing (+1) to GnnnnVnn could be replaced by a >different naming convention that accomplishes the same thing >Gnnnnnnn.Vnnnnnn and more sophistication in specification of relative >generation numbers. I just don't want to have to change JCL data set >names for each instance of an ESDS.
If you want IBM to take your ESDS-GDG requirement seriously, you might want to beef up that business case a wee bit. "I just don't want to" doesn't have a whole lot of weight (unless, perhaps, you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates). >><snip> >>The failure to allow ESDS on tape and provide GDG type naming >>capabilities also is a sore point with me. >></snip> Tapes are becoming largely obsolete - why waste any time on that support now? However, more generalized GDG support might be a very nice thing to add to z/OS (or its successor) since that is a fairly big differentiator between z/OS and *nix systems. I've heard MANY *nix administrators and programmers lament over the lack of GDG-style support on their platforms. (Most of them attempt to reinvent that wheel and most attempts that I've seen missed quite a few cogs and spokes.) There might well be a lot of business value to IBM if z/OS would generalize the GDG support to (a) VSAM and (b) zFS files, and then perhaps carry that support back out to the iSeries and pSeries platforms (after crowing about it on z/OS first). -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
