Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-27 Thread Scott Barry
This can be easily tested -- 1) create a suitable GDG base, 2) allocate an explicit dataset as **.GV00, 3) allocate a relative (+1) generation, and watch what happens, either using ISPF 3.4 (DSLIST) and/or LISTCAT. Scott Barry SBBWorks, Inc.

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-27 Thread Longabaugh, Robert E
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 5:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference Lizette Koehler wrote: > Barry, > > I have heard that the

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-27 Thread John Eells
Lizette Koehler wrote: Barry, I have heard that the number of GDGs may be allowed to go beyond 255 generations. Do you have any insight on this? I am wondering how this enhancement may impact the GDG Wrap condition. GDGEs were introduced with z/OS V2.2 and can have up to 999

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread Barry Merrill
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference Barry, I have heard that the number of GDGs may be allowed to go beyond 255 generations. Do you have any insight

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread Lizette Koehler
age- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Barry Merrill > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:44 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference > > An old change in MXG

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread Barry Merrill
l -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:37 PM, L

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread Nims,Alva John (Al)
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:35 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference catsearch just prints output in the order received from IGGCSI00. I have confirmed that LOCATE resolves existing

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread J R
6 9:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Lizette Koehler <stars...@mindspring.com> wrote: > John, > > Would this code account for a V01 - V99 ending in the GDG? > And would it

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread Kirk Wolf
catsearch just prints output in the order received from IGGCSI00. I have confirmed that LOCATE resolves existing relative GDG references correctly. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, John McKown wrote: > On Wed,

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-26 Thread John McKown
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Lizette Koehler wrote: > John, > > Would this code account for a V01 - V99 ending in the GDG? > And would it handle the fact that the next GDG might not be a GVxx but > maybe a G0001Vxx? Remember GDG numbers at the back can wrap a

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-25 Thread Lizette Koehler
LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Kirk Wolf <k...@dovetail.com> wrote: > > > I want to resolve an existing GnnnVnn for a GDG using a (0) or (-n) > > reference, but in th

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-25 Thread John McKown
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > I want to resolve an existing GnnnVnn for a GDG using a (0) or (-n) > reference, but in this case I don't want to allocate the data set. > > Is there a better way than to list the HLQ.GDG.* catalog entries with > IGGCSI00 and

Re: Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-25 Thread Kirk Wolf
Just figure out that LOCATE seems to handle it. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > I want to resolve an existing GnnnVnn for a GDG using a (0) or (-n) > reference, but in this case I don't want to

Proper way to resolve existing GDG GnnnVnnn by relative reference

2016-05-25 Thread Kirk Wolf
I want to resolve an existing GnnnVnn for a GDG using a (0) or (-n) reference, but in this case I don't want to allocate the data set. Is there a better way than to list the HLQ.GDG.* catalog entries with IGGCSI00 and then pick off the minus nth entry? (is this even correct in all cases?) BTW