Ed:
That is why I have always resisted the extra features of SORT as they
*ARE* sort dependent.
A long time ago a company I was at set a standard of what sort was to
be used. The LPAR was using syncsort (nothing wrong with that IMO)
and they installed DFSORT. The conversion went reasonably well but
then a yearly job ran 8 months later and it failed because of
incompatibility of sort control cards.
Luckily the people (IBM IFIRC) helped the programmer change the
control cards so the job was successful. But there were a *LOT* of
political fallout as a result. As a result there had to be a year
overlap on future program product changes so a fall was available.
On the other hand we were ordered to get of one vendors software and
installed another vendors software and the control cards were 100
percent compatible.
SO it seems to work sometimes, just hope you don't get into a
political fight.
Ed
On Feb 2, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Ed Finnell wrote:
Do they all have the same Sort packages? I've been burned at multi-
site
companies that used different Sort
Products for their needs. Our custom tailored reports failed
depending on
which Sort they were using.
In a message dated 2/2/2016 1:34:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bill00ash...@gmail.com writes:
have access to the load module. Rexx is a possibility to run
instream, but
I think the Sort option is less to maintain and hopefully less to go
wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
