On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:22:11 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >> Would it be unreasonable for either OPEN or the application program (IDCAMS >> in this case) to check for this case? > >What should it check? ... There is obviously nothing OPEN could check for since it can't know your intent, and there can't be a general answer for applications. Ther CAN be an an answer for IDCAMS. If it is not performing a PDS-oriented function (like deleting or renaming members) it could do some simple validation. For example, as near as I can tell, REPRO supports no PDS-related functions. If you are going to REPRO to a PDS it can only be to a member allocated via JCL (or SVC99, etc.). Yes? Validation seems appropriate to me in that case. And if that change to IDCAMS were made, IBM could add a "clobber directory" option you could specify to make it work as now. I don't think this would be worth a formal request, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable action. > ... If I use BSAM or EXCP to write, then the >DCB parameters aren't even relevant; what else could Open check? >... But your programs are not IDCAMS. They can do whatever you want them to. >Ditto for IDCAMS - it's a utility that performs a requested >function, and has no way of detection inapplicable usage. ... But it can detect use "incompatable" with the input and output dataset characteristics. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
