Maybe I'm just too darned skeptical. The claim of a historical relationship between DYNALLOC and MVS Unix is not merely anachronistic; it's patently absurd. I used a fully documented DYNALLOC as a new system programmer in the late 1970s. When a grand case for any proposition is marred by an obvious falsehood, I get suspicious about other elements of the argument that I may not be so familiar with. "Oh that part was wrong, but the rest was right" is a weasel move that induces me to change the channel.
. . 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 Steve Beaver Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 6:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Disable DYNALLOC? To disable DYNALLOC would be to cause MGMT to delete you job plain and simple -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of CM Poncelet Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Disable DYNALLOC? 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
