Fair points.
However, there are two things I want to mention:
First, let me note that BDT, in its new incarnation as z/OS elements, is
still very much in service even though it has not not been under active
development. (The last update was in OS/390 R2.) Only the former
standalone product has been withdrawn from service.
Second, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that requirements against FTP
would stand a better chance of success of being satisfied than
requirements to reopen BDT. Feel free, of course, to submit
requirements against either, both or neither.
Art Gutowski wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:44:19 -0400, John Eells<ee...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I'd suspect that most people use FTP these days for PDS and PDSE
transfers, both of which it supports (including load modules and program
objects, I'm told by the developers). There are other ways to skin the
cat but (as someone who is NOT a non-networking expert!) this seems like
the most likely one to me for simple transfers.
(Note: The BDT product, 5665-264, was withdrawn from service in 2008,
but it lives on as a set of priced optional features and a base element
of z/OS.)
John,
I responded to Cheryl offline, but your response prompts me to speak up
publicly...
While not 'most people', I know of at least one large shop that is still a heavy
BDT FTF and NJE user (JES3). I'm sure usage of the former grew from the
necessity of the latter. Conversion of PDS' to PDSEs had been a repeated
frustration over the years, and probably still bites them on the ankles (or
slightly higher) periodically.
FTP works for load modules, true, but (1) it doesn't handle certain load
modules at all (AFAIAA), and (2) users have to be vigilant of the transfer
parameters they use, and (3) it's a pain for big, multi-dataset transfers. BDT
was a no-brainer, and it is disappointing (frustrating) to me that IBM withdrew
this product from service and refused to write support for PDSE. Although, I
suspect it is as much DFSMS' fault for not providing the sort of transparency
to the access method that would allow BDT to support PDSE without
modification. BDT handles PS-E datasets, so QSAM but not BPAM, eh?
Unless, of course, BDT is doing something untoward with BPAM, which is not
out of the question.
Before anyone suggests XMIT/RECEIVE - one word: unattended. Make that
three: checkpoint and retry. There are other products out there, I am sure,
but for those JES3 shops that have not yet moved to TCP/IP NJE and have to
run BDT NJE, why would you buy yet another transfer product?
(1) While these types of load modules may not reside in PDSE, I gave up on
using FTP across the board because it continually chewed up modules
with "unusual" linkage attributes like page-aligned and scatter-load. So now
it's FTP for PDSE and BDT for PDS? Argh.
Regards,
Art Gutowski
Compuware Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
