I don't know if they still exist, but there use to be applications that did BLDLs of linklist modules. Refreshing LLA was moot. Compressing those libraries could be hazardous to those applications. Then there was the co-worker who liked to stage changes in linklist and not do the LLA refresh until implelemtation time. aghhh... Dynamically adding or deleting libraries was not possible back then.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 6:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: LLA Management of Linklst datasets On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:38:37 -0800, retired mainframer <retired-mainfra...@q.com> wrote: >My rule of thumb, drilled into me long before z/OS, was "any change to >the link list merits a refresh of LLA." Don't know if it's still valid >but it never caused a problem. To me, it looks like very cheap insurance. > That would be true of changing something in an existing library in the LNKLST, but not to dynamic add of a library. The second statement about cheap insurance isl true, although I would change it to LLA UPDATE. A refresh of the entire LNKLST could break something (plus has a negative performance impact). Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
