Mark Zelden wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:55:15 +1000, Shane Ginnane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Should I use VLFNOTE ?
Quick answer - use "TSO %membername".
What does that do to change VLF behavior? Using % just changes the
search order, so unless there is a program name with the same name
as a CLIST being found first, it shouldn't make a difference in
regards to VLF caching.
Long answer - updates are always recognised within the boundaries of the
sysplex they originated in.
"Always" is perhaps a little strong. "Updates made through IBM-supplied
code" is what the fine manual says.
http://tinyurl.com/plz3l
Radoslaw, how did you make your update?
Two ways:
1. Insert new member to PDS on SYSPROC concatenation.
2. Update existing member of the library.
I've got to admit I didn't investigate to much. Just discovered that VLF
recycle helps, so I always do STOP/START.
It is not good method, since it affects other VLF exploiters and
consumes ASID.
I tried to play with VLFNOTE but the only result I got (except syntax
errors) was ...S047 abend.
That's why I asked the IBM-MAIN. I was sure that it is well known issue
and everybody except me knows the answer ;-)))
BTW: Indeed, % sign does not change anything.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
