At 11:53 -0600 on 01/09/2012, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: Error apply ZAP:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:54:45 -0500, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
I think that you answered your own question.
"aside from not recovering the
victim(s) of a ++DELETE command?"
I could never understand why that is the case. RESTORE should
restore everything.
Yup. There's another one that's about as bad. When link edit JCLIN
adds an INCLUDE statement, the load module is not necessarily
relinked to add the MOD element mentioned. I know; this behavior
is documented fully, even tediously. That doesn't alter the fact that
the design is wrong. The resource spent on adding emphasis to the
description of a deficiency would better have been used to repair it.
-- gil
RESTORE itself is BAD (Broken As Designed) since it removes SYSMODs
that are not the SYSMOD being designated as being RESTORED. Instead
of using ONLY the elements that are in the SYSMOD being RESTOREd (by
using the copies that this SYSMOD replaced) it can remove additional
SYSMODs (requiring a follow-up APPLY of the erroneously removed
SYSMODs). After a RESTORE, I should be in the same state as I would
be if I had not APPLY'ed the SYSMOD in the first place. Instead I can
end up with other SYSMODs removed since the elements that were
replaced by the SYSMOD were in another SYSMOD along with other
elements NOT in the SYSMOD being RESTOREd. A RESTORE should be an
APPLY of ONLY the elements that are in that SYSMOD even though there
were other elements in the SYSMOD you are getting them from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
