On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:51:06 -0500, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > >>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. > >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. > And here, I half strongly disagree with SMP/E; half agree.
If the PTF being RESTOREd is a PRErequisite of subsequent APPLYed PTFs, it's a logical necessity that those should be RESTOREd also. (I don't know that this is automated.) ACCEPT is a kludge. I use VMFMERGE on CMS. It has no operation analogous to ACCEPT and no repository analogous to the distribution zone. The programmer may RESTORE any consistent collection of PTFs. VMFMERGE gets any needed elements from the DELTA directory, its equivalent of the GLOBAL zone. There's no firewall limiting you to RESTORE exactly to that point and never beyond. I consider it a far superior and more usable design. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
