Jon Perryman wrote: >Does anyone believe that symbols is causing the problem with SMP/e
>install JCL? Do you think we can't write rexx, use ISPF JCL tailoring, >ISPF edit macros or the many other tools that everyone else uses to >tailor JCL? Not sure who "we" is. If you mean customers, then no, I know from experience that many of "you" cannot do many of those things, or have trouble with it. Even if "you" can, then having the instructions say "Update these SET statements but also make the same changes in a bunch of other places" feels like amateur hour and confuses customers. >If simplifying the install process is so vital, then contact the >vendors. I can only speak for myself but I don't feel asking you to >spend 10 extra minutes to customize the install jobs is asking too >much to guarantee you at least looked at the JCL and possibly realize >that we did not make the correct choice for your environment. Do you >think that in 40 years we couldn't come up with a completely automated >install that fills in the blanks? We are the vendor. We're dealing with our customers. Giving them a program that updates the jobs automatically leads down a twisty maze of "Where are the jobs they're updating?" and "Where do they put the Rexx program?" and such that's at least as bad as the original problem. It's quite amazing how little many customers know. >The bigger question is if using edit change commands causes this much >grief, have you considered the implications of how you plan to >maintain products? Don't understand this question. We give them SMP/E update packages that apply with another job. Anyway, when I get a chance, I'll look at the SYMBOLS= thing, which will apparently solve our immediate problem. I'd still suggest that a wee bit of effort in SMP/E error handling might be a good investment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
