On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:31:40 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:35:26 -0800, Raymond Noal wrote: >> >>If you want a private PDS/Copybook to precede your production COBOL copy book PDS and have it unique to each user, how about this - >> >>//syslib dd dsn=&sysuid..pvtcobol.copylib >>// dd dsn=appl.prod.copylib >> >Then each user must allocate "&sysuid..pvtcobol.copylib" >lest he get a JCL error: "DATA SET NOT FOUND". Indeed! I knew that but had forgotten. >>-----Original Message----- >>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick >>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:19 PM >> >>I have a question that is going to keep bugging me until I ask it, even though >>I'm fairly certain I will not be happy with the answer... >> >Alas and amen. > >>//COBOL.SYSLIB DD DISP=SHR,DSN=FJS.PDSE.COBOL >>// DD DISP=SHR,DSN=APPL.PROD.COPYLIB >> >>Specifically, I am compiling Cobol source found in FJS.PDSE.COBOL(OBJ1) and >>including copybooks that are found in either FJS.PDSE.COBOL or >>APPL.PROD.COPYLIB. >> >>The way we've gotten around it so far is to have something like this in the >>proc: >> >>//SYSLIB DD DSN=&CLIB1,DISP=SHR >>// DD DSN=&CLIB2,DISP=SHR >>// DD DSN=&CLIB3,DISP=SHR >>// DD DSN=&CLIB4,DISP=SHR >>// DD DSN=&CLIB5,DISP=SHR >>// DD DSN=&CLIB6,DISP=SHR >> >>and have the PROC step changed like this: >>//IGYWC PROC LNGPRFX='IGY.V3R3M0',SYSLBLK=3200, >>// CLIB1='APPL.PROD.COPYLIB', >>// CLIB2='APPL.PROD.COPYLIB', >>// CLIB3='APPL.PROD.COPYLIB', >>// CLIB4='APPL.PROD.COPYLIB', >>// CLIB5='APPL.PROD.COPYLIB' >> >>And the JCL to execute the proc would be this: >>//COMPILE EXEC PROC=IGYWC,LNGPRFX=IGY, >>// CLIB1='FJS.PDSE.COBOL' >> >Or, the user could supply overrides. I'm not sure what you mean here. That is an example of a user override. >>This works, but: >>- It requires you know ahead of time (when building the PROC) the maximum >>number of copylibs that will ever be used. > >Three ought to be enough -- ISPF only allows three and >ISPF is never wrong. ! :-) Does anyone out there actually use the ISPF supplied compile screen? Before I got involved with the z/OS stuff a co-worker had already written a REXX panel for our compiles for us to use, so I haven't much looked at the ISPF supplied ones. >Notwithstanding Bill Waite tried to teach me, "There are >only three nice numbers: zero, one, and as many as you like!" > >>- It seems silly to have to include the same library over and over. >> >The overhead is it's allocated and opened over and over. >A successful BLDL will never search directories over and >over more than necessary. An unsuccessful BLDL ... but >why fret over performance of the error case? I fret over everything! :-) Actually, I'm not all that concerned about the performance. I just find it esthetically unpleasing! >In Rexx I do this by attempting to allocate each catenand >and catenating only those for which the allocation succeeds. > >I hate JCL! What gets me is that there seem to be so many good things, but most of them don't work like I think they should. One thing that we probably could do is have the REXX exec generate the entire JCL stream. No pre-built proc at all. I'm not excited about that, though, as I think it's probably easier to debug the proc. But I haven't looked at the REXX exec as it is now, so who knows. Frank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
