On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:03:39 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

>I suspect the objective is to eliminate PDS entirely.  Simpler is better, and
>PDSE is simpler than PDSE + PDS.

broken != simpler.
Do you not recall the discussion (!) re PDSE enforcement for Cobol 5 recently ?.
That is unworkable for shops that are (for example) a ring of monoplexes. 
NUCLEUS as PDSE in such cases would be madness - or is the expectation that 
NUCLEUS doesn't need latch protection ?.

Shane ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to