Charles >> DISP is always for dataset, not for member.
> That statement is a useful principle to keep in mind but it is not exactly relevant to my question. The statement is wrong and I think there may actually be a significance for your threefold initial question. For the arguments as to why that statement is wrong, please see, for example, my posts in answer to Don Williams and Gerhard Adam. > (And more specifically, *disposition* (DELETE, CATLG, etc., as opposed to status NEW, MOD, etc.) is always for the dataset, not the member.) A subtlety not to be overlooked. Chris Mason On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 07:26:17 -0800, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: >A lot of replies. Thanks all. Let me try to address various comments in a >single response. > >> You mis-interpreted my intention > >Sorry. I took "I'd suggest you to simply perform some tests - IMHO it's much >better than asking others about it" and "Has it occurred to anyone to just >look at the JCL Reference manual?" as a rebuke. My apologies if I was >over-paranoid. > >> English is foreign language for me > >Your English is certainly better than my Polish and I thank you for being so >tolerant of us mono-lingual Americans. > >> it seems the place to be having this conversation is with IBM > >I am not alleging any bug in any IBM component. I was simply asking how it >worked. I think the whole of "MVS" could use some vast improvements in >documentation but that's just IMHO and I don't think IBM would be terribly >responsive to my opening a ticket. (And please, save the flames, yes, "MVS" >is much better documented than some operating systems.) > >Ah! I get it. You interpreted my "I have a bug involving the treatment of >PDS members" as meaning that I was alleging a bug in "MVS." Nay! By "I have >a bug" I meant there is a bug (apparently) in my code. That is, the product >is failing at a customer's site and I have no reason to think the bug is >other than in my code. > >I've found the immediate problem. Where my code apparently really should be >testing for NEW or MOD it was testing only for MOD, and as JCL apparently >populates JFCBIND2 with NEW (x'C0') for both NEW and MOD my code was failing >for both cases. > >I asked about the differences between NEW and MOD because if I was going to >change the code I wanted to get it right. SHOULD the code be differentiating >between NEW and MOD? (Apparently not.) > >> I don't find that the MVS documentation is "scattered" ... >> I don't recall seeing conflicting or contradictory documentation ... >> I'm not sure what you might be referring to. > >Agreed, on this particular topic, all of the documentation is apparently in >one place. But one does not know that, does one? If one is trying to RTFM >about how feature X works and one finds a paragraph or a chapter devoted to >X, how does one know whether there is additional (or conflicting!) >information elsewhere? Particularly if the keywords in question are DISP or >NEW or MEMBER which occur with such frequency that a simple search is not >useful? > >> DISP is always for dataset, not for member. > >That statement is a useful principle to keep in mind but it is not exactly >relevant to my question. FOO(BAR),DISP=NEW behaves differently depending on >whether or not FOO(BAR) exists. So DISP is always FOR the dataset, but its >behavior is affected by the member. (And more specifically, *disposition* >(DELETE, CATLG, etc., as opposed to status NEW, MOD, etc.) is always for the >dataset, not the member.) > >Finally, I think some of you just don't appreciate the software vendor >sales/support environment. I think many of you if you were dealing with a >vendor you would be quick to say "you are asking big bucks for your product. >Like it or not, this is how our shop does things. Fix your product or go >away!" But somehow when you put on your "advice" hats you think a vendor >should be in a position to tell a customer "what you are doing is illogical >so fix your logic and THEN buy our product." You may be "right" -- but you >wouldn't sell much software (i.e., stay in business and pay your >programmers' salaries) if you were a vendor with that approach. > >Thanks again. Great resource here. > >Charles > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf >Of R.S. >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 5:10 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Subject: Re: Difference between DISP=NEW and MOD for a PDS member? > > >Charles, >You mis-interpreted my intention. I suggested the tests, because it's >IMHO good advice. I think you understand it as "don't bother us with >simple questions, you should RTFM or test it!". Yes, it can be >understood that way, but *it wasn't my intention*. >Please, remember: English is foreign language for me so sometimes some >nuances or allusions can be unintentional. I answered because not to say >"I know the answer", but because I knew the answer and thought it can be ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
