We ran an inherited ISAM application in the 80s, a true dog. Then we learned of a VSAM conversion aid that was at the time built in to whatever then passed for DFSMS. It was magical. Simply convert files from ISAM to VSAM and point the application to them. The system automatically transformed all ISAM I/O operations to VSAM and returned data to the application as it expected. Absolutely no changes to the application. The result was breath taking.
I'd be curious to know if that conversion aid is still delivered with z/OS. . . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@att.net > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Paul Gillis > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:02 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5 > > Remember one of those from the early 70s when one of our monthly ISAM > update jobs would run for almost 24 hours. One of the smarter guys around at > the time looked at it and sorted the update file, which was mainly inserts, > backwards and the job ran in less than 30 minutes, he understood ISAM inserts > really well. He was one of my colleagues that pointed me toward systems > programming. > > Cheers, > Paul Gillis > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Savor, Thomas (Alpharetta) > Sent: Friday, 29 January 2016 10:18 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL v5 > > I'm not sure about the ISAM part. I HATED ISAM. If you enjoy watching your > jobs grind away seemingly forever....then you liked ISAM. I've always loved > VSAM....maybe because I hated ISAM so much. > > Ever have ISAM job that did an Update in Place (not file in/ file out)....ugghh > !!!!! > > Thanks, > Tom > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of R.S. > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:28 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: COBOL v5 > > W dniu 2016-01-28 o 19:44, Charles Mills pisze: > > I cannot speak for IBM, but IMHO they may have felt that way at one > > time, but EC 5.2 is clearly an investment on IBM's part and a > > commitment to the future of COBOL. > > > > You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. "Add new features" and > > "make it go into an old-fashioned load module" are potentially > > inconsistent requirements. > > > Well, IMHO there are two kinds of mainframe customers: > > a) Legacy > We don't want PDSE, We don't want binder. We don't want SMS. We still want > VSAM passwords. We don't want VSAM. ISAM was good. We don't want > FICON. We want ESCON ...for BUS&Tag connectivity. We want 3274... > > b) modern > We want COBOLE AMODE64. We want HFS/ZFS >4GB. We want DSORG=PO to > be multi-volume. We want JCL modifications. Etc. > > The problem is satisfying b) means troubles for a) group. > > > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > Lodz, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
