On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:06:03 +0000, john gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
>Scott Rowe writes:
>
><begin snippet>
>...
></end snippet>
>
> ... he is saying that it is better to have an enq with major and minor qnames
> that cast their net too widely than to have no enq at all.
>
> ... true; but it is not nearly so interesting as it sounds. It is indeed a
> straw man: no one has proposed abolishing the enq.
>
Robert Rosenberg appears to be agitating for narrowing the cast. Any
such change is hazardous, for example as recognized in:
Title: z/OS V1R11.0 ISPF Planning and Customizing
Document Number: GC34-4814-08
APPENDIX1.1.2 ISPF data set integrity enqueue
...
RESERVE SPFEDIT,dsname,E,44,SYSTEMS
...
Attention: Do not install SPF and ISPF on the same system.
There is a danger of destroying PDSs that are being updated
by SPF and ISPF at the same time because SPF uses a different
Qname (SPFDSN) than ISPF.
I suspect this is ancient and irrelevant. Otherwise, it's
insufficient: not "same system", but "any systems sharing the
volume".
I still, wonder is Mr. Rosenberg's concern hypothetical, or has he
(or anyone) suffered an impact?
Gerhard Postpischil's concern is fatuous. As long as all users of
a given resource use the same ENQ format it suffices. The slight
risk that a programmer might reflexively transpose the formats
of SYSIEWLP and SYSDSN is outweighed by the certain catastrophe
that would result from changing the format at this time.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
