I haven’t researched SMPE on this question for a long time. VB REXX elements may be legal now. If you have any, that proves your case.
OTOH it doesn't matter much because if there is even one each of FB and VB elements, you still have the same problem with concatenation.. This will not work: //SYSEXEC DD DSN=FB-PDS // DD DSN=VB-PDS . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Spiegel Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Concatenating VB and FB ? Hi Skip, You said: "... Vendor distribution is usually FB--SMPE pretty much requires that ...". Can you prove that "SMPE pretty much requires that"? I think that this assertion is false. Regards. David On 2019-05-13 12:04, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > I've worked for several large, mature shops. Large means many users who need > TLC; some will be quite influential within the organization. Mature means > lots of processes deeply embedded in the infrastructure; some will be > considered Tier 1 production. > > The problem with FB vs. VB--mostly in script management involving CLIST or > REXX--is as old as MVS. For most of affected shops, the conundrum is the > reverse of OP's. Vendor distribution is usually FB--SMPE pretty much requires > that--while older shops chose *many decades* ago to standardize on VB in > order to economize on SLED space and I/O overhead. I have never heard of a > generic mechanism to allow FB and VB SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenations to > coexist transparently. So it usually falls on the sysprog team to convert > supplied data sets to the user-expected format. > > The biggest problem with format conversion is that you have to keep up with > vendor updates. That's way more trouble than the original conversion. So if > pressure on the vendor gains you nothing, you need to live with the hassle. > One technique to simplify life works if you can isolate a product to a > particular set of users. For example, SMPE and IPCS are used by sysprogs. You > can write an 'INIT' REXX that allocates vendor-supplied data sets--including > e.g. REXX of the opposite format--and instruct users to run *your* > application. The INIT REXX almost never needs updating; vendor updates > everything else. > > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Seymour J Metz > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 8:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: (External):Re: Concatenating VB and FB ? > > Concatenation of FB and VB isn't going to work. I prefer VB, but changing it > after the fact is a user hostile move. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.g > mu.edu%2F~smetz3&data=02%7C01%7C%7C29293da556de462861d808d6d7bcae9 > 2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636933602772274132& > sdata=O%2F4Dn1wVo%2BMCxCA%2FRRIyQnf5gVVhfF%2Bn1cggQdKM%2Bu0%3D&res > erved=0 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on > behalf of Tim Hare <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 10:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Concatenating VB and FB ? > > I seem to be finding different answers on this. > > A vendor used to ship some files as PDSes with RECFM=FB and LRECL=80 (BLKSIZE > 23440). User-customized members at this shop were put in a different PDS, > with the same attributes, and concatenated in cataloged procedures, ahead of > the vendor's libraries. Pretty standard practice I'm sure most are familiar > with. > > Suddenly, because (I'm told) of a merging of code bases at the vendor, their > PDSes are now RECFM=VB and LRECL=2044 (BLKSIZE 27998) ! My instincts tell > me this isn't going to work well, but with changes in concatenation of > libraries over the course of my career I'm not sure. Here's what I think: > because of the "new" rule where the largest BLKSIZE sets the buffer size, > we'll be OK for reading the blocks (23440 fits into 27998) but when we try > to read a member from the VB library, the RDWs are going to mess things up. > > I have tried searching for the answer, but haven't, apparently, found the > right source yet. > > What say you all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
