On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:01:43 -0600, Chase, John wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin >> [ snip ] >> It's a major design shortcoming that one can't REDO a ZAP. It would >be so easy -- if PARM=REDO and >> the content of the module matches the REP, assume it's OK. And SMP/E >should supply the REDO parm to >> AMASPZAP for APPLY REDO. >> >> (There should also be a PARM=UNDO.) > >How does RESTORE not accomplish an UNDO, aside from not recovering the >victim(s) of a ++DELETE command? > In our development, we often do APPLY REDO (this is extraordinary in end customer environments; we never require it). REDO is incompatible with ++ZAP, even if the ZAP itself is unchanged. We rarely do ZAPs; we've learned our lesson. In the past, we've dealt with a vendor not using SMP/E who distributed service as reversible ZAPs with a proprietary zap utility which could zap not only load modules but also SYSPUNCH-format objects.
I wonder why ++DELETE precludes RESTORE? It should be straightforward to rebuild program objects from parts in the DLIBs. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
