At 00:45 -0600 on 02/17/2008, Ed Gould wrote about Re: DFSMS APAR
OA22738 - IGD17295I:
<x-flowed>On Feb 16, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 16:09 -0600 on 02/15/2008, Mark Zelden wrote about DFSMS APAR
OA22738 - IGD17295I:
Interesting. I had an extended off-list thread with someone about
this problem
last May after this subject came up. There was really nothing
that could be
done because they used the LIKE parameter.
It seems that IBM is attacking the symptom not the problem. Since
PDSEs are only allowed to be single version, why not just FORCE the
vol-count to be 1 and issue a message STATING this was done if the
dynamic allocation requests/allows allocation of more than one volume?
Could it be that in the future (????) they will be allowed to be
multi volume? I was looking over some notes from a IBM announcement
and either I wrote it down wrong (possible) that IBM opened with some
sort of statement that they were looking at making them multi volume.
So? When/If this restriction comes off the PTF/Function code that
does it can also remove the IBM code that forces single volume by
over-riding the muti-volume permission. This is the same as they are
now doing by backing off the code that issued the message.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
</x-flowed>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
