----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Zelden" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: IDCAMS delete with mask
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:17:52 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg
<[email protected]>
wrote:
At 17:05 -0700 on 09/26/2009, Stuart Holland wrote about IDCAMS
delete with mask:
The delete with mask feature currently defaults to only looking in the
master catalog. You have to code the CATALOG parameter to have it look
anywhere else. There is an APAR open to remove this restriction. It also
does not work under TSO. There is a separate APAR for that.
IMO that restriction should not exist in the first place (so long a
the mask does not affect which catalog you are referencing). IOW: If
the unmasked part of the name leads to a catalog by following the
alias chain, that should be enough for it to work without needing to
alter IDCAMS's processing by supplying it with a CATALOG parm.
You would think. I think most if not all the room (who hadn't already
worked
with 1.11 via ESP or vendor programs) was surprised at the session I was
in
at SHARE when this (illogical?) behavior was described. At least it is
getting
rectified a lot quicker than the shortcomings of the SMF logger dump
program
(IFASMFDL) did.
So this half-a$$ed masking was put in there by DESIGN? WOW! Incredibly
brain dead. They violated Lionel Dyck's "principle of least astonishment".
It should have been designed to work like standard dataset masking in SMS.
Designer: "Should we use DFDSS rules? Nahhh! (and now for something
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, cue the Liberty Bell march). At least they're not
making us submit SHARE requirements to fix it.
There, I feel better.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
