On 2017-06-30, at 15:23, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> I agree on both points. I am totally mystified by the presence of O prefix
> on the PATHOPTS values. It makes it so much hard for me to read; specially
> OWRONLY. Why not just W, R and WR? Sheesh.
>
Consistency with UNIX/C. See, e.g. the
On 2017-06-30, at 13:44, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> I'm all in favor of the RFE in principle, but I think that choice of keyword
> is crucial. Based on decades of history: what happens in JCL stays in JCL.
> Forever.
>
> I personally find the OMVS keywords unintuitive and therefore--unless one
DISP=NEW if it does not
exist)?
Frank
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Possible RFE for new
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Possible RFE for new DISP JCL parameter options
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:24:18 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>YES!!!
>
>Years ago I wrote and m
I've always thought that DISP=MOD was an odd duck. Seems to me that to be
consistent it should be a JCL error if the dataset doesn't exist.
Anyway, yes, this is a great idea. I can't believe we've gone this far
without it.
sas
...
I could be missing a use case.
Frank
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Possible RFE for new DISP JCL parameter options
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:24:18 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>YES!!!
>
>Years ago I wrote and my company sold a mainframe-PC file transfer
>product (in the
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:24:18 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>YES!!!
>
>Years ago I wrote and my company sold a mainframe-PC file transfer product
>(in the pre-FTP days), and it supported a DISP operand for the creation of
>mainframe datasets that worked exactly as you describe, with two steps under
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:39:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
>I would like to see two new [DISP] options that behave in a manner similar to
>the two options above that are not currently supported for MVS data sets. I
>suggest the following:
>
>DISP=CREAT: Similar in behavior to
YES!!!
Years ago I wrote and my company sold a mainframe-PC file transfer product
(in the pre-FTP days), and it supported a DISP operand for the creation of
mainframe datasets that worked exactly as you describe, with two steps under
the covers. I'm trying to remember the keyword for the
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:39:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>One MVS behavior that has annoyed me since we migrated to z/OS from VSE is the
>fact that MVS has no DISP option that will both create a data set if it does
>not already exist and simply allow its use if it does already exist. One has
I would vote for it
Dennis Roach, CISSP, PMP
AIG
IAM Platform Administration | Identity & Access Management
2929 Allen Parkway, America Building, 3rd Floor | Houston, TX 77019
Phone: 713-831-8799
dennis.ro...@aig.com | www.aig.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
12 matches
Mail list logo
