Paul, Just checking; I thought there was something in this question that wasn't obvious. It seems more likely that IBM would fix or replace BPXBATCH than to change JCL and how EXEC PGM works. (FWIW, COZBATCH is < 1 KLOC).
Besides - what you want in most cases for Unix binaries is to run the user's default login shell and have input via "//STDIN DD *" (and have it all run in the original address space). Changing "EXEC" to handle Unix binaries would not necessarily address this aspect, nor the problem that z/OS Unix standard files (fds) can't be automatically redirected to/from MVS datasets. Happy New Year, Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com PS> Re: "Prohibitive"(?): COZBATCH is *free* to use but we offer paid commercial support agreements if you require. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:25:05 -0600, Kirk Wolf wrote: >> >>How would this help anyone? What benefits would it have over >>BPXBATCH (or COZBATCH) ? >> > You're quite familiar with the problems: > > o BPXBATCH: DD statements tend to evaporate. > > o COZBATCH: The price is prohibitive to many sites. (I suppose > they could buy the service contract.) > >>>>//STEPNAME EXEC PGM=lcpgm >>>>//STEPLIB DD PATH='/path/to/my/bin/directory' > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
