SVC 99 (aka macro DYNALLOC) allows doing much more than dataset (de)allocations via its TUP list parms. So yes - it should always remain available for use in systems programs, irrespective of its being hypothetically "harmful" in production jobs (whatever they are). My ha'penny. Chris Poncelet (retired sysprog consultant)
On 20/12/2017 22:38, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >From a recent thread (rant?) in ASSEMBLER-LIST: > > ... Do you stand by "SVC 99 for good measure"? Generally, products > do not implement it for good reason. Irrelevant in CICS and IMS. > In batch, it bypasses job scheduler, job restart, violates production > control requirements, bypasses JES3 resource management > and potentially poses a production security risk. TSO has the > alloc command which can easily be used in clists. It exists > because of MVS UNIX. ... > > Disregard the anachronism in the last sentence. If, hypothetically, > DYNALLOC except by initiator is so harmful as to be prohibited in > production jobs, is there any way to do so? If it were possible, > what would be the collateral damage? What fraction of production > jobs would work, unmodified, without using DYNALLOC? > > Are code reviews a better technique? Other (specify)? > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > . > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
