home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!LIB.AUBURN.EDU!BNICOL
- Organization: Auburn University Libraries
- X-pmrqc: 1
- X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R3).
- Message-ID: <MAILQUEUE-101.930127142257.320@lib.auburn.edu>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:22:57 CST
- Sender: NOTIS discussion group list <NOTIS-L@TCSVM.BITNET>
- From: Beth Nicol <BNICOL@LIB.AUBURN.EDU>
- Subject: VSE JCL
- Comments: To: notis-l@vm.tcs.tulane.edu
- Lines: 31
-
- Leigh:
-
- I was just reading Naomi's comments about JCL. I, too, wonder if MVS
- and VSE can be kept so closely the same without one group or the
- other feeling abused.
-
- A couple of points: Overall, I like having the procs. But, then, I
- work in a situation where my jobs are scheduled through a production
- control group at the computer center, and it is far easier for me to
- change a faulty proc and get going again than to have to worry
- about re-migrating JCL through their system.
-
- Also, I could agree with the perspective that if a procedure is used
- in multiple jobs, then PROC it. The most maddening thing I have had
- to deal with is 1 or 2 step, one time jobs that execute procs (i.e.
- one time file conversions, etc). These I just make in-line in most
- cases.
-
- In general I support the folks who feel that the current JCL is quite
- workable, if it is just consistent, and correct.
-
- Just my 2 cents worth,
-
-
-
-
- Beth Nicol ************************************
- Automation Manager * When in danger, or in doubt, *
- Auburn University Libraries * Run in circles, scream & shout! *
- BITNET: bnicol@auducvax * -R.Heinlein *
- INTERNET: bnicol@lib.auburn.edu ************************************
-