On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:09:16 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 18:08 -0500 on 08/09/2006, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: Vendor JCL >(was: WHY IS JCL ALLERGIC ... ): > >>I can assure you that many vendors produce inferior SMP/E. SMP/E is a >>powerful tool, and when the SYSMODs are coded correctly, it makes >>installing and maintaining a system easy. > >That is until you have to RESTORE a SYSMOD at while point SMP/E >causes you to do lots of useless work. The intent of a RESTORE is to >create a system as if that SYSMOD (and possibly SYSMODs that PRE it) >had not yet been APPLYed. The CORRECT way of doing a RESTORE >operation is to determine which elements must be backed off and which >SYSMODs contain the replacement versions of the elements. The current >implementation causes you to have to remove (and subsequently >reAPPLY) SYSMODS that have nothing to do with the one being RESTOREd. >As a simple example, SYSMOD1 contains elements A, B, and C while >SYSMOD2 contains only element B and PREs SYSMOD1. Both are currently >in APPLY status. To RESTORE SYSMOD2, I must also RESTORE SYSMOD1 (and >possibly SYSMOD3 which PREs SYSMOD1 since it contains a newer copy of >A and/or C but not B). All that is needed is to just reAPPLY element >B from SYSMOD1 and you have RESTOREd SYSMOD2 but SMP/E goes through >useless work to back off A and C also (along with other elements in >SYSMODs on the PRE chain that is anchored at SYSMOD1) only to then do >an APPLY (sans SYSMOD2) of all the erroneously RESTOREd SYSMODs. If >all you want to do is RESTORE B, you should run the element SUP chain There is no such thing as an "element SUP chain." >on B until you find a copy to APPLY/use (in this case the copy in >SYSMOD1) and ignore everything else. RESTORE is a flawed design since >it involves elements that are not affected when the correct versions >are available from SYSMODs still in APPLY status or from the DLIB >copy of the element. > Elements from the sysmod being restored *always* come from the DLIB zone. You and I can disagree about the design of RESTORE. I don't have a problem with the way it works. I've heard arguments similar to your many times, but I have seldom had a problem with it. Prior to a RESTORE, it is sometimes necessary to ACCEPT service up to the one(s) that I want to restore. While that this can be a nuisance with a product that has had many ++ZAPs applied to a module, most of the time it is not such a big deal. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
