On 2018-02-01, at 02:33:03, Rob van der Heij wrote: > > Indeed, traditional CMS programs all have their own logic to identify data > sources, though we can access Shared File System directories as if it were > a mini disk and have most programs handle the data there. Exploitation of > FILEDEF and NAMEDEF is minimal, as far as I know. > Too few classic CMS programs have interfaces as pipeline connections; too often such wheels must be reinvented in a pipeline stage.
Too few classic CMS programs access SFS files directly; the SFS directory must be ACCESSed as a drive letter. I's painful to run out of drive letters. How do classic CMS programs deal with BFS files? In z/OS, UNIX files can be ALLOCATEd to DDNAMEs with JCL or with DYNALLOC. > CMS Pipelines allows programs to be chained together like stdin and stdout > let you do on UNIX. It comes with a suite of efficient built-in programs > and provides a programming framework to write your own (REXX) programs > operate on input and output streams. CMS Pipelines goes beyond UNIX pipes > with a multi-stream pipeline topology ... > That restriction is a myth. C programs can deal with multi-stream pipe topologies. In shell that requires named pipes. > ... and coordinated error handling to > Very true. But a C program (not shell) can get completion status from individual pipe stages. > write real world applications with pipes. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMS_Pipelines -- gil
