Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

Shmuel! Where ya been? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 4:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new? In

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/05/2007 at 03:44 PM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD IN PRIOR STEP WAS NOT >RESOLVED new in z/OS (new relative to OS/390)? That message or one very similar goes all the way back to OS/360. >I have JCL that

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

In , on 03/05/2007 at 04:20 PM, Ray Mullins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >And it's really not an error - it's a warning. It's not even a warning. Note the "I". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't car

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

ch 06, 2007 7:03 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new? Yep, as Maxwell Smart says, "now that oughta do it!" Since it's flushing on a JOBLIB, the JESMSG data set is going to be awfully small - what, 4 or 6 lines total? Don&#x

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Monday March 05 2007 16:46 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new? Ah! Thanks. You and Ray are right. It's flushing but on a different error. I was just ab

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

In a recent note, Charles Mills said: > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:46:26 -0800 > > noticed that the error it IS flushing on is an "I" message also. Go figure! > I guess it's "informational" -- it's informing me that my job has been > flushed! > I sympathize. I have ranted about this a few

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

In a recent note, Bob Rutledge said: > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:22:08 -0500 > > How is it not working? Is not // DD DDNAME=MOREDD being treated as DD DUMMY? > I see that it's documented that it should work that way: #<<< 12.17.5 "z/OS V1R7.0 MVS JCL Reference"

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Rutledge Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 4:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new? Not new. How is it not working? Is not

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

Not new. How is it not working? Is not // DD DDNAME=MOREDD being treated as DD DUMMY? Bob Charles Mills wrote: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD IN PRIOR STEP WAS NOT RESOLVED new in z/OS (new relative to OS/390)? I have JCL that was working in OS/390 V2R10 but is getting this e

Re: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Monday 05 March 2007 15:44 > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new? > > Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD IN PRIOR STEP WAS NOT > RESOLVED new in z/OS (new r

Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD ... new?

Is IEF686I DDNAME REFERRED TO ON DDNAME KEYWORD IN PRIOR STEP WAS NOT RESOLVED new in z/OS (new relative to OS/390)? I have JCL that was working in OS/390 V2R10 but is getting this error in z/OS. It's a concatenated DD: //MYDDDD DSN=SOME.DATASET.NAME(MEMBER),DISP=SHR //DD DDNAME=MORED