On Sep 6, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:27:42 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
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.
Huh ???
I raised no issue with the programming interface to the utilities
(at least not in this thread). It is exactly that of the LINK
and ATTACH MACROs, and exactly that of ATTCHMVS. To change it would
affect far more than the utilities.
My complaint is that there's an interface from Rexx that supports
the full capabilities of ATTACH's parameter list, and another that
allows calling a program in the authorized state, but none that
supports both.
Gil, to me its a two issue problem. One: the calling parm issue. I
just cannot believe that IBM would come up with a "non standard" parm
list . The published standard is just that standard. If attachmvs is
not honoring the standard then it should be either changed or an
option on the the command to make a standard calling list should be
put onto the command. At the moment I don't have access to the parm
list that attachmvs creates. You will have to find it and examine it
against the utilities parm list and go after IBM if it is either
incorrect(don't agree) or figure out how to get attachmvs to correct
the "apparent" discrepancy. In either case it is simply an IBM issue
as the grandfather clause should hold them to correcting the issue.
It is also possible that maybe IBM will figure out a way to skate
from the seemingly inconsistent parm passing.
It could be as simple as the parm you are passing is incorrect and
once you correct it the utility should work as advertised. Please
look at the manual for invoking the utilities from another program.
It was at one time clearly documented. If it isn't now, then open a
doc apar. My memory is really foggy on the parm You should look at a
manual for the final word.
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
