> I spent a *lot* of time in the microfiche, reading the CVOL code. Whatever
> the reason was for concatenating the generation data sets in reverse order,
> I don't think it was for performance.
Been there, done that! I always assumed that the complementing of generation
numbers was *specifically* to achieve the reverse sequence returned in GDGALL.
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:53:01 -0600
> From: m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: GDG Question
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:06:41 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:38:57 -0600, Martin Kline wrote:
> >>
> >>You can't satisfy everyone. I suspect it was a performance choice made many
> >>years ago. For whatever reason, it is what it is. Deal with it or get over
> >>it.
> >
> >Correct. I remember CVOLs. The original OS/360 catalog structure. Many of
> >the current ills we have in this area are due to compatibility with the
> >original CVOL structure.
>
> I spent a *lot* of time in the microfiche, reading the CVOL code. Whatever
> the reason was for concatenating the generation data sets in reverse order,
> I don't think it was for performance.
>
> --
> Tom Marchant
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
