Walt, this has been an interesting thread. For an ancient like myself who grew up with MFT/MVT uni-processor systems, it has been an education to learn that JCL Conversion and Interpretation are no longer handled in one place, much less that Execution is a separate third phase. That these are valid performance improvements I won't argue.
Let me just relate the point of view of the simple application programmer: Symbolics are a Good Thing, and I ought to be able to use them in my ordinary Batch JCL. As for values, I would expect them to reflect the EXECUTION-time environment and no other. The Conversion and Interpretation systems are completely irrelevant and *should* be "transparent" to my application needs. I don't give a feghoot about them. The developers in charge of Symbolics need to remember their single-system uni-processor roots -- No matter how or where submitted, Batch JCL runs in only one place on only one image of the OS (however you define that) -- and that's the only place that counts. IMHO, of course. :) Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Using symbolic in JCL On 11/30/2005 11:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In that case, a multitude of customers would be delighted to see the > date and time symbolics moved from the class of "system symbols" to > the same class as &SYSUID, whatever you call the class. I understand > (but don't necessarily agree with) the concern over the ambiguity over system names. > But the difference between Reader time, Converter time, and > Interpreter time is different in character, and exists even now, even > for STCs. If an STC started just before midnight incorporates the > date system symbol in a data set name, that name may disagree with the > timestamp stored with the data set. > > Most users don't care about such microscopic precision; IBM should > relent its intransigence and make at least the date and time symbols > available in batch JCL, with the stipulation that the values of such > symbols reflect the reader environment, not any other. Unfortunately, since different systems in a sysplex (or sharing the spool) could have very different times and dates, they could get very unexpected results if we let those symbols be used in batch job JCL. Suppose the job converted on a system where the date is today, and ran on a system where the date is several days, or weeks, ago. (The normal case is to have them very close, of course. And the more likely unusual case is to have them simply a few hours off. But nothing requires that the dates/times be anywhere close across systems, that I know of.) Walt _ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
