On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:43:28 -0500, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill, > >I value your contributions here. They are always appropriately >informed, as was your last post in this thread. > >That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate >way to record an open-for-update macro instruction is to set BOTH the >in and the out bits, which is not being done. Now that I understand >that this byte is intended to reflect just in-effect open options, I >conclude that its implementation was indeed botched. > >In this OCO era I cannot look at the source code to be certain, but it >seems very likely that these bit settings can also be fixed readily >(without raising the spectre of compatibility breaches). > Are you saying that the IN bit should be set for updates, and not for writing new records, as a way of distinguishing between the two? I presume you are not saying the IN bit should be required to be set in the ACB prior to OPEN, if updates are to be done, as that would introduce a compatibility problem. Are you saying that even if the IN bit is not set in the ACB, it should be set in the SMF record? If so, the SMF record ceases to reflect the actual state of the ACB. The issue becomes "what is the purpose of SMF record 62?" At OPEN time, when record 62 is written, it is not possible for OPEN to determine whether records will be updated or inserted or both. There is no "OUTPUT" or "UPDAT" option on the OPEN macro for VSAM ACBs. All that is known is that if the OUT bit is set, updates and insertions are allowed. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
