On 13 Sep 2015 16:05:48 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:48:10 +0300, Itschak Mugzach wrote: > >>?you can send object code as IBM and other vendors does and let SMP link >>it. Another option is to name the cobol source as Assembler, and replace >>the assembler processor to IGYCRCTL. >> >Eek! > >> ... The only problem i see is the many >>work files the Cobol compiler uses and wouldn't be allocated by the >>"assembler", but you can permanently allocate them via JCL. I would give it >>a try. >> >I wouldn't. > >This is unworkable for a product that has actual assembler source in addition >to COBOL. Better to deliver compiled ++MOD elements and only link in the >field. > >How do vendors deliver COBOL products?
Back in the 1990s the two vendors I was aware of delivered source and had a source maintenance process. I assume that most COBOL products are maintained by an applications group as opposed to the systems programming group. They normally have their own maintenance and control environment which is definitely not SMP based and which is far easier to understand (ISPW and CA-Endeavor are two that come to mind although both have their quirks and shortcomings). I would suggest that if there is a simple way to deliver COBOL in all of the popular change management formats (highly improbable) that is a better way to go for source based systems. If only load modules are involved with no source component AND the system is installed and maintained by the systems programming group, then SMP/E may be appropriate. Clark Morris > >-- gil > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
