On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:26:39 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:40 AM Phil Smith III wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not saying how this "tagging" would be implemented. I don't know if
>> >there is any room in the VTOC entry for a CCSID. Or if it would require
>> >something in the VVDS. And the problem remains for "mixed" data where the
>> >records contain both "binary" and "textual" information.
>>
>> That's an intriguing thought. Of course adding metadata like that to z/OS
>> data sets creates a whole new mess, with "Oh, that application/whatever
>> doesn't handle the tagging", but once we got there, it sure would make life
>> simpler!
>
It would be easier to define a new attribute to new Program Objects (or
relinked ones) that to retroactively tab a legacy of data sets.
>That's why I want the access method to implement the CCSID conversion,
>along with "tagging" and a DD parameter so that the application receives
>the data in the code point it is written to handle. I don't want the
>application to have to deal with "metadata", but put it on the back of the
>access method; most likely QSAM and BSAM and maybe even VSAM. Much like DB2
>can do some of this.
>
There are CCSID options on the JCL JOB, EXEC, and DD statements that do some
of this. But their function is so restricted as to make them nearly useless.
This whole "tagging" business is a pathetic attempt to cover up two original
blunders.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180513204153/http://www.bobbemer.com/P-BIT.HTM
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
