On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:38:50 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 03:29:33 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote: > >>Micro Focus COBOL can read "Mainframe" and write ""PC", several ways. >>Enterprise COBOL can write the data as ASCII (that's just for information, as >>DASD-shortage rules that out for you). >> >Again, could POSIX pipe circumvent that constraint? > >-- gil I don't know enough about the actual task to know if the lack of DASD is a direct constraint :-) With the knowledge that Micro Focus COBOL can read EBCDIC and write ASCII, perhaps just shipping the data as binary becomes the preferred solution? There's mention of multiple large files. The costs will be less just banging it out of the Mainframe as rapidly as possible (if it doesn't choke the receiving server). I like pipes. I don't like that little caveat you made, except why would it be relevant here? Either on the Mainframe or with Micro Focus, the COBOL would be trivial, so not a problem using Micro Focus (since they have it) even if the final destination isn't a COBOL system (if it is not, simply through data-definitions, make any binary, packed-decimal or (shock, horror) floating-point into "text" fields). If the server chokes on large amounts of data (and I've seen enough questions on splitting files because "we can't send more than xMB to the server at once") to know that some types (never find out exactly what) of issues exist, that could be a factor in the solution. Some combination from the options of split/pipe/COBOL/someotherlanguage can get the task done, depending on the specifics. ETL generally does this stuff. If they can get the ETL sufficiently honed, that may be a neater solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
