to serialize updates to
PDS members.
Agreed. Having had coffee, I attempted to say what I really meant in a
subsequent post.
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:11:56 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: tcpip, vary obey command failed : exclusive control
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
In [EMAIL
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02/07/2008
at 09:29 AM, J R [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ISTR that ISPF edit's SYSDSN ENQ behaves differently
for a sequential dataset versus a member of a PDS.
SYSDSN is Allocation, not ISPF. I believe that what you are seeing is that
for sequential data sets ISPF
.
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:29:14 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: tcpip, vary obey command failed : exclusive control
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
It wants to have exclusive control of the dataset.
Not necessarily!
ISTR that ISPF edit's SYSDSN ENQ behaves differently
fails if I try a nonexistent member (
logically ) and if I use a dataset for which TCP/IP is not authorized.
Did you test sequential versus member of a PDS?
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:40:05 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: tcpip, vary obey command failed : exclusive control
J R,
I did several tests. The obey fails if I try a nonexistent member (
logically ) and if I use a dataset for which TCP/IP is not
authorized.
Did you test sequential versus member of a PDS?
Nope, I didn't test sequential, because that would need a sequential
dataset that TCP/IP is
Pat
When I have forgotten to get out of edit mode on the FB file, the
obeyfile command fails.
It wants to have exclusive control of the dataset.
Not necessarily!
This is the output of an obey for a dummy-file which I entered in edit
mode:
MVS V TCPIP,,O,SYS1.TCPPARMS(OBEY3)
6 matches
Mail list logo
