On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:06:25 -0500, Doug Henry wrote: >On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:50:22 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil wrote: > >>In any case, IBM should be persuaded to either produce a JCL error or >>modify the directory build to write an EOF. > >Of course their are methods to default the number of directory blocks. One >that easily comes to mind is dataclass. But isn't all of this something that >occurs during allocation and open is to late. Unless you create at least one >directory block for a pds , what good is it? > I can think of a scenario, far-fetched but still plausible, where this might be normal operation. Suppose I have a program that generates JCL. The submitted job creates and processes a variable number of members, but the number is known a priori. Compulsively, I calculate the precise number of directory blocks needed. The number may sometimes have been zero, in which case the job allocates a PDS with no directory blocks; processes no members; deletes the PDS and terminates.
I would be shocked and dismayed to find my job, which has been working for years, to start failing on conditions which it has previously handled successfully. One might argue that for economy I should bypass the allocate and delete when there are no members. I don't care; it's a boundary condition that should be handled smoothly. All hypothetical, of course. It was pointed out here that when allocating a PDS the number of directory blocks must be specified. Barbara specified a number. The documentation, as cited, did not state that it must be specified as nonzero. Not writing the EOF is contrary to the doc, and should be APARed. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
