This was supposed to go to the list. The REPLYTO sent it elsewhere. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL!
-----Original Message----- From: "Ted MacNEIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:30:58 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Static Symbols in JCL >should IBM remove the. FORCE key-word from the SETPROG LPA,DELETE command >because its misuse can crash the system? Bad example. There a lot fewer people authorised to issue any operator command vs submitting jobs. Also, no matter how IBM implements it, there will be complaints. And, what happens if an ISV starts using it, and you now need parms set to something different to what you are using? Here are a couple scenarios: 1. Pick execution system. The JCL has already been parsed and tokenised. How do you substitute? 2. Pick submitting system. The values controlling certain variables are different. How do you resolve? 3. Pick converting system. What happens if it runs where a variable is different? What do you do? Keep an 'infinite' table of possible values and convert just in time. That would be a re-architecting of submit, convert, execute to submit, determine executing system (the only one with true guarantees), then do conversion. If I don't have SYSAFF, I don't know which system it will run on until it percolates to the top of the queue. And, what happens if an initiator is no longer available after final conversion? If you can not guarantee (repeatable) results, you should not implement/support it! - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
