On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:27:12 -0600, John McKown wrote: > >So, have you ever wanted to run multiple, concurrent, executions of some >program which does not accept an alternative DD name list? For instance, >some in-house COBOL program. Wouldn't it be kind of nice to be able to >specify some parameter, such as NEWTIOT=YES so that the program being >attached would have its own, "private" TIOT & XTIOT, which would then >propogate to any of its children TCBs which did not have a NEWTIOT=YES. >Hum, it might even be nice to be able to list which DDs are to be "passed >down", a bit like you can say whether or not to share a specific SUBPOOL >with a subtask. That might be nice for something like SYSPRINT. > It has long been my perception that IBM has a penchant for providing valuable facilities at implementation layers that limit their usefulness. I consider the alternate DDNAME list an example. Rather, it should be an additional argment to ATTACH, implemented by code in ATTACH and OPEN, and quite transparent to the child task. And rather than positional it should have apparent/real DDNAME pairs.
I suggested this here before. An ISV employee reported that his product achieved the effect by screening SVCs, with some (unspecified) limitations. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
