of 1/half dozen of the other?
In
009066fa266f9b428db827deaa3c0e2701a6e...@exchangevs-04.ad.wsu.edu,
on 06/14/2010
at 12:13 PM, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu said:
I prefer to have the ISV datasets in LINKLST statements in PROGxx
cataloged in the master catalog and not use volume
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:40:35 -0400, Don Williams donb...@gmail.com wrote:
Where can I find the pros and cons of controlling the content of the MC?
I don't think you'll find what you are looking for (a pros/cons list). It's
mostly common sense.
There is paragraph in DFSMS Managing Catalogs
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net wrote:
From: Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 11:19 AM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:40:35 -0400, Don Williams donb...@gmail.com wrote:
Where can
---snip
I don't think you'll find what you are looking for (a pros/cons list).
It's mostly common sense.
There is paragraph in DFSMS Managing Catalogs in the planning a
configuration chapter that states this:
For ease
In
009066fa266f9b428db827deaa3c0e2701a6e...@exchangevs-04.ad.wsu.edu,
on 06/14/2010
at 12:13 PM, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu said:
I prefer to have the ISV datasets in LINKLST statements in PROGxx
cataloged in the master catalog and not use volume references.
And others prefer to keep them
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:12:54 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Keeping versions in files in the link list, or any other PARMLIB
members, requires editing with every installed release.
It depends upon how you do it.
Consider product foobar.
The product is installed in ISV.FOOBAR.V3R2M0.LOADLIB, which
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
I agree with you about versions. My manager, OTOH
Actually, my boss is a very good technician. ex-UCCEL developer.
He should be managing, now.
Not micro-managing.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
I prefer to have the ISV datasets in LINKLST statements in PROGxx
cataloged in the master catalog and not use volume references.
My co-worker doesn't think it as a big deal and usually uses a load
library cataloged in the ISV usercat and a volume reference.
Am I just being anal (I really don't
We have our CICS, DB2 and IMS system datasets residing on Non-SMS volumes
that are not cataloged in the master catalog. The datasets are shared among
fourteen (14) LPARs without any problems. We are an ISV.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu wrote:
I prefer to have
not to
use them, irritating.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Daniel Allen
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
We have our CICS, DB2 and IMS
the real DSNs
PROGnn specifies DSNAME(SYSV.CAVIEW.MVRVIEW..CAILINK) VOLUME(SYSL2)
Regards,
Alan
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Gibney, Dave
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:13
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Linklst; 6 of 1
Like I said, I might just be excessively anal about the issue. I find volume
references (parm, JCL, etc.), anywhere there is a choice not to
use them, irritating.
If you're anal, then so am I.
I prefer things to be found through the catalogue, rather than having to
remember, and maintain, where
Either way works.
It's more about what you are comfortable with (even if you are
OCD/anal).
I always felt the trick was to pick one and stick with it and not mix
the two.
Personally I prefer a unique HLQ for ISV datasets in the mastercat (e.g.
SYSX.prodver.*) and non mastercat entries as
Personally I prefer a unique HLQ for ISV datasets in the mastercat (e.g.
SYSX.prodver.*) and non mastercat entries as MVS.prodver.* (for example).
I don't like versions in LNKLST datasets.
I have no problem with them in maintenance or steplibs.
But, regardless of the HLQ, they should not have
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
Personally I prefer a unique HLQ for ISV datasets
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:04 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
I don't like versions in LNKLST datasets.
I have no problem with them in maintenance or steplibs.
But, regardless of the HLQ, they should not have versioning
in the production environment, IMO.
I agree
I agree with you about versions. My manager, OTOH, totally disagrees. So we do
it his way.
Don't you just hate it when managers make technical decisions?
Staff should be smart enough to determine the best way to organise the products.
Managers should be smart enough to let staff do their jobs
It is mostly a religious issue, but for some products there are practical
considerations.
I don't see it as 'religious'; just less editing of PARMLIB.
I'm curious.
Can you give an example of when the version should be included in the LNKLST?
Or, am I reading too much into 'practical
...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
Personally I prefer a unique HLQ for ISV datasets in the mastercat
(e.g. SYSX.prodver.*) and non mastercat entries as MVS.prodver
From: Starr, Alan alan_st...@calpers.ca.gov
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Mon, June 14, 2010 2:42:35 PM
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
Hi Dave,
---SNIP
I am against having any vendors library
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half dozen of the other?
Hi Dave,
---SNIP
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:34:25 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote:
Current product in question is FDRABR. He has also done Syncsort like
this. Both are needed early in the IPL and if there is a way to avoid
link/lpa listing them, I don't know it.
In many cases, I do prefer ISV in the system search
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Linklst; 6 of 1/half
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:44:58 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote:
I've tried to promote fully qualified aliases to have a static name in
the JCL and other places while supporting versioning in the actual
dataset name.
It's been successful with a different set of products/co-worker, but
he recently took
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
---BeginMessage---
On
---snip---
I prefer to have the ISV datasets in LINKLST statements in PROGxx
cataloged in the master catalog and not use volume references. My
co-worker doesn't think it as a big deal and usually uses a load library
cataloged in the
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:13:04 -0700, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu wrote:
I prefer to have the ISV datasets in LINKLST statements in PROGxx
cataloged in the master catalog and not use volume references.
My co-worker doesn't think it as a big deal and usually uses a load
library cataloged in the
28 matches
Mail list logo
