On Sat, 28 May 2016 01:05:47 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >Lizette, I agree that the doc needs to be updated. I'll submit an RCF. >Gil's post made me thinking. As a matter of fact, I've been using larger >blocksizes for XMIT data sets for a long time, but only when allocating them >for FTP to upload one. So, RECEIVE happily accepts larger block sizes. > And if it's unspecified? This might be INDD(allocated-unix-file).
>I never cared to look at what TRANSMIT allocated. I just tried and found that >TRANSMIT overrides the block size with 3120, when the data set already existed >(and uses this when it allocates the data set). > If "overides" means "writes back to the DSCB" I can consider this data corruption, particularly in the case of an existing PDS; SR-worthy. And at least RFE-worthy, change the behavior to take the DCB OPEN exit, then, o If RECFM is unspecified, supply FB o If resulting RECFM is neither F nor FB, fail. o If LRECL is unspecified, supply 80. o If resulting LRECL is not 80, fail. o Ignore BLKSIZE; let SDB have its way. o Perform no consistency checks; OPEN will do that, possibly ABENDing. As the OS becomes more complicated it becomes correspondingly less acceptable to brush aside complaints with such as, "Oh! Your PDS was corrupted? You should have RTFM; it's documented." -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
