From the get-go (mid 90s) we created multiple sysplexes for business reasons. Long before sysplex, it was the practice here not to share *anything* among 'systems', each of which had its own purpose: sandbox, development, production, etc. For us it was natural (and surprisingly easy) to convert each system into its own separate sysplex. Sharing was kept within a strict functional unit. Sysplex was the new unit.
I understand that many (most?) shops did not evolve that way. When I first heard at SHARE about the PDSE requirement for COBOL, I was concerned that many shops would have to change their way of doing business. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it's a 'gate' to moving forward. Unfortunately a shop that has shared PDS forever sees little business benefit in creating and maintaining multiple PDSEs even though the post-conversion overhead is minimal. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Giliad Wilf Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:57:53 +0800, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote: >IBM first introduced PDSEs about 27 years ago. IBM first introduced >Java on >OS/390 about 21 years ago. > >That's a long, long time ago. > >It's impossible to defend stubborn opposition to these and to other >highly mature technologies. Business (and the business of government) >will get done, with or without you. If that's how you choose to >(mis)behave, then I can't criticize managers who decide to chuck you in >the garbage heap of history. If you won't change, then you should >be/will be changed. I suppose we can quibble about how much change >makes business sense in particular contexts, but zero is the wrong answer. > >Jimmy Iovine said it well: "Never stop being of service." > Still, the idea that safe, regulated sharing of a PDSE can only be guaranteed to members of a single sysplex, seems to hint that IBM thought at time that no one will ever need more than one sysplex. Doesn't it seem so? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
