On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:06:35 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
when (in assembler) you invoke most (all?) IBM utilities to specify
in a parm list the ddnames you want to use. ...
In assembler you would be able to but in JCL and TSO you cannot.
while
Rexx "address ATTCHMVS" allows you exactly that facility. I don't
know whether you consider Rexx part of TSO nowadays or not.
So, "address ATTCHMVS program parm1 parm2 ..." supports supplying
alternate
DDNAME lists, but not invoking authorized programs; "address TSO
[TSOEXEC]
call *(program) parm1" supports invoking authorized programs but not
supplying alternate DDNAME lists.
IBM designers fail to understand that doing something half right
twice is
simply not as good as doing it fully right once. Why didn't they
invest
the same resource to provide a single facility with both capabilities?
Conway's law strikes again.
Not necessarily... You have to look at the utilities manual and see
the exact sequence of the parm list that is to be supplied, if it
isn't then you are out of luck. BTW you are SOL if you try and get
the utilities to change as most (all?) of them are probably
functionally stabilized. *IF* attachmvs has its own then you probably
should ask for a conforming parm CP to be created. IIRC the utilities
are pretty standard in their requirements (nothing special) for parm
being passed. I am not defending IBM but the utilities have done it
this way for 20+ years and it would take an act of god to get IBM to
change them (WAD).
You might have better luck asking for a new set of utilities (god
knows they are needed) that conform to the attachmvs cp . In any case
I think you are out of luck.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
