I have to say I agree. If PDSEs are fundamental to the OS, then internal OS code should support them.
If they're not fundamental, then COBOL should not be requiring them. I'm not a sysprog either, so I don't fully appreciate the sharing issues, but for gosh sakes, after 26 years of customer complaints IBM should have gotten all of the issues under control. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 6:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PDS/E, Shared Dasd, and COBOL V5 While I have been away from systems programming for over a decade, I am appalled to see that a PDSE still cannot contain SYS1.LINKLIB, SYS1.LPALIB and SYS1.NUCLEUS. Whoever came up with the idea that a major access method should be done by a started task should be consigned to the same hell as the person who decided that local SNA 327X devices could only be accessed though VTAM thus requiring shops to have 2 BiSync 327x controllers for console availability. Would anyone care if NIP took a cylinder, 2 cylinders or even 100 cylinders. If started task is a good idea for PDSE, it should be equally good for VSAM. At least code to read PDSE's should be available to NIP and maybe SYS1.NUCLEUS. Clark Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
