Hunkeler Peter (KIUB 34) wrote:
Even component prefix is not always uniques. See IKJnnnnn messages.
Some
of them belongs to RACF.
How do you know they belong to RACF?
See: SA22-7686-06
In fact they grown from TSO.
It need not to be unique. It is *strongly suggested*. It is
*convenient*. But the system and systems programmers can surviver
without full uniquity.
Component prefixes need to be unique, otherwise a module of one
component can inadvertantly be replaced by another module from
another component, both residing in the same load library.
No. Component *names* need to be unique. Component prefixes *should* be
unique to keep things simple. However I can imagine central repository
of all component names. (SMPE/E ?)
Mainframe has a lot of such "standards". For example: Snnnnn libraries
are target libraries (DDDEFs), while Annnn libraries are distribution
libraries. *Usually*. With a number of exceptions, like LINKLIB or
LPALIB (no S). Many of them are exceptions because they existed before
those rules arised.
These again aren't component prefixes. It's a naming convention, and I
agree, there very often are exceptions to conventions.
Component prefixes are conventions as well. Sometimes single component
use several prefixes (ie. RACF: ICH and IRR), sometimes single prefix is
shared (ANT different copy services). Usually prefix is 3-letter, but
there are numerous exceptions as well.
Disclaimer: I don't want to say we don't need standards. We need them.
Standards, naming conventions provide order and simplification. However
those rules are not strict.
Regards
--
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
