The had the same problem with CP 273 and also converted
some DB2 V7 subsystems from 500 to 273. Emu and others use 273 and
for OMVS you may use parameter CONVERT like
CMD(OMVS CONVERT((BPXDEUSH)))
BPXDEUSH means german (DEU) sh (shell) = 273
Another issue was the CICS precompiler in combination with C/C++ which just
generate
code in CP 1047. After a long offline discussion Hursley accept an APAR
to support CP 273 via ??=pragma filetag ("IBM-273"). Not sure how this work
with CP 37 and I believe this will be changed in future if CICS will support
the
integrated compiler for C/C++. Alternate you can use ?? for #, ??( for open
brackets
and ??) for closing inside your C/C++ code.
Never had any issue with Java because just a few application runs on z/OS.
AFAIK ftp supports different CP.
Since the UNICODE feature we can expect more products using this feature
Roland
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Wunderlich
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Codepage 37 vs 1047
We recently converted our DB2 CCSID from 500 (a long ago
default) to CP37 to fix some translation problems and prepare
for DB2 V8. This was not a trival exercise. We chose CP37 and
have been stanardizing our compilers, terminal emulators, etc.
I'm now finding that many of our "open systems" components
(java, ftp, IMS
Connect) default to using Cp1047. The significant difference is
that square brackets "[]" are represented by CP37 as x'BA'
x'BB' and by CP1047 as x'AD' x'BD'. I'm running around changing
tables and parms as things crop up.
IBMLINK item BDC000027070 documents the history of the
different bracket codepoints and states that "today, there is
only one correct mapping, and that is the x'BA' and x'BB'
mappings." The item further states "Unless you have specific
requirements for 037, these days 1047 is probably the better
choice as a default." (The converse of the "one correct
mapping" statement).
It seems that no matter which I "standarize" on, I'll wind up
having to modify something from it's default. There are always
a few gotchas -- how things appear in OMVS vs ISPF, for example.
My question is, for those US English shops that have swam
through this issue lately, which codepage did you choose to
standarize on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
