In my view, the tape label support directly in DDR is *only* to give standalone DDR the capability to read any multivolume labeled tapes generated by CMS DDR. If I'm willing to live with the restriction that
standalone DDR will not be able to do that, which I am, then all I really need is what is in the first requirement I posted, which is essentially a n interface to an existing EXIT (DMSTVS/DMSTVI): "Requirement: When running under CMS, DDR should allow interfacing with tape management systems during EOV processing and allow the tape management system to control the tape drive during such processing." With the TMS in control at EOV the TMS will appropriatly position the new tape before giving control back to DDR. They can be labeled or not, CMS DDR will never know. The SYSPARM parameter on FILEDEF can be used to pas s whatever tape mount information is needed to DMSTVI. Brian Nielsen On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:07:52 -0700, Thomas Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Tape Label support in DDR has always seemed to be a non-starter for IBM. > >What you might succeed in, is asking for an EXIT (remember EXITS, that great >idea that could get us away from source code), that would be invoked at Tape >open, Tape EOV and Tape Close. Then we could code our own REXX programs to >handle tape mounting, tape labeling and tape positioning. > >/Tom Kern > >--- Brian Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:23:53 -0400, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> wrote: >> >> <snip discussion of alternate DDR modification> >> >> I understand your goal now. >> >> >I just want IBM to spend their development money to get us the bigges t >> >bang for the buck. I think that having the I/O from DDR as something we >> >can get our hands on with other tools would give us a LOT more option s. >> >> I don't want to ask for something so big that it gets shelved as a non - >> starter. Adding DDR support for a tape management system (eg. via cal ls >> from CMS DDR to DMSTVS/DMSTVI is much more tractable, more likely to g et >> done, and quite probably of greater value to sites that rely on DDR >> instead of a 3rd party solution. >> >> Brian Nielsen >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >======================== ========================= ========================
