To clarify my post about putting a consolidated application library in LINKLIST. Audit did not 'force' us, they 'pressed' us. Difference is that Audit exhortations can be resisted if you don't mind going on the defensive all the way up the flagpole. In our case, this production library contained modules for all major applications. Update access to this library was managed by production control people, a segment of the Operations group. Audit felt that this was better control than allowing production jobs to STEPLIB to anything in the house. Concern in this case was not for mischief performed by AC=1 programs but by devious logic in unauthorized programs. Banks have to so darn careful. ;-)
. . 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 Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist "He jests at scars that never felt a wound." But it's not my dog. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 1:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist Some folks have probably been burned by the abuse of user libraries in the LINKLIST and so preach fire and brimstone against it. To others it is just "business as usual" because they have not experienced such abuse or its consequences. I am one of them. As I said, YMMV. Each company is a mini-culture unto itself, and our beliefs and fears are ruled by culture and experience. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist I dunno... when we migrated from VSE to z/OS in 2010 I was almost burned as a heretic for suggesting that user application libraries be placed in the linklist... ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Farley, Peter x23353 <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist Re: #3, that is not necessarily true. Depends heavily on the shop-standard STEPLIB rules (use or don't use production "user library" in STEPLIB's). As long as the "normal" rule is NOT to use production "user library" in STEPLIB's and you choose to use the "two library" approach to migration, putting the PDSE ahead of the PDS in the LINKLIST makes sense and does what you need it to do. As usual, I think it is a case of YMMV depending on your shop's historical STEPLIB rules. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist I am surprised no one yet as asked, is the OP referring to 1) The COBOL compiler library, 2) the COBOL runtime library, or 3) user libraries with COBOL programs. 1) Don't see any real need for this. 2) Probably already done, as the COBOL runtime library is CEE.SCEERUN 3) I've been told that "user libraries" like this should never be in the linklist. ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Jake Anderson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist Hi A general question Do you still cobol load module in linklist post upgrade to 6.2 ? Regards Jake -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
