Peter Relson wrote: >PROGxx has existed for almost 25 years, and support within there for dynamic >LNKLST for almost 20 years.
Too long. Haha ;-D >We're looking at some new work for which we likely won't change the LNKLSTxx >path, thus requiring use of PROGxx for defining the LNKLST in order to use the >new functionality. >So, >-- are folks still using LNKLSTxx Not us. (After I have looked one last time in our IEASYSxx members. >-- are you aware of the CSVLNKPR exec (in samplib) that exists to create a >PROGxx member from a LNKLSTxx member? Yes, but never used that. >The default for APF processing has never changed from "static table" (there's >a "dynamic format" operation to make it dynamic, but it's best if that is >identified during IPL to avoid wasting space). Are folks using a dynamically >format APF list? (i.e., the APF FORMAT(DYNAMIC) statement in PROGxx, or >SETPROG APF,FORMAT=DYNAMIC)? Yes. I'm also thinking of 'LNKLST ACTIVATE NAME(&SYSNAME)' in PROGxx beside APF FORMAT(DYNAMIC). In fact we use in IEASYSxx this PROG=(A0,A1,L0,L1), keywords are as follow: Sysplex wide APF, LPAR unique APF, Sysplex wide LNK, LPAR unique LNK. So, just one nice PROG with all and everything nicely lined up. >I hope that all such problems have long ago been resolved, but we have still >left control in the hands of the customer. Do what you did for BPX.DEFAULT.USER, ISAM and COBOL statements. You just say you will support old feature x until z/OS <future release> while you have new feature z from z/OS <past release>. Make a official statement of direction that you will drop LNKLST=xx in a future release. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
