I just realized that my thoughts on PDS member integrity are wrong,
otherwise we wouldn't be able to have concurrent edit within a PDS.
I think the exclusivity for a member is via SPFEDIT.
However, my point on staying in edit in sequential versus staying in
edit in a member stands.
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:29:14 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tcpip, vary obey command failed : exclusive control
> To: [email protected]
>
> > >It wants to have exclusive control of the dataset.
> >
> > Not necessarily!
>
>
> ISTR that ISPF edit's SYSDSN ENQ behaves differently
> for a sequential dataset versus a member of a PDS.
>
> IIRC the sequential dataset retains an exclusive ENQ
> after the first save whereas, in the case of a PDS,
> the exclusivity is only maintained for the duration of the save.
>
> (I can't easily prove this right now as my client has
> evidently "hidden" ISRDDN.) :-(
>
> If this is the case, remaining in edit on a sequential
> obeyfile would have a worse effect than would a member.
>
> > I did several tests. The obey fails if I try a nonexistent member (
> > logically ) and if I use a dataset for which TCP/IP is not authorized.
>
> Did you test sequential versus member of a PDS?
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
