> Do customers of ISVs generally welcome products that require PDSE? I have encountered push-back on this issue. Not recently, but perhaps because I have learned to stop asking the question.
EVERYONE has a story about a PDSE that failed on them in 1995. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GOFF On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:20:29 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: > >EJ writes that > >| There are indeed many restrictions, but few of them matter. > >My view is different. I, for example, find longer-than-8-character >names very convenient, indeed essential in table-generation macros that >generate a great many RSECTs. > Also modern programming languages. Alas, our laboratory configuration precludes practical use of PDSE (too many systems at too broad a span of releases (some EOS) for Sysplex). Alas, alas, UNIX directories, a possible alternative, are not supported in STEPLIB concatenation. Feels like material for a Requirement. Do customers of ISVs generally welcome products that require PDSE? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
