Prev: Generate XML with attributes from a cobol copybook
Next: mainframe material
From: Arnold Trembley on 15 Jan 2008 03:39
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:05:22 -0700, "Frank Swarbrick"
> <Frank.Swarbrick(a)efirstbank.com> wrote:
>
>> What happens if you put a PROCESS or CBL card at the top of your source
>> file? Will production implementation reject it because you are trying to
>> use a non-standard compile option?
>
> They get ignored in Endevor's migration process. (I've tried it)

I believe this is configurable with Endevor. My shop uses Endevor,
and I have no problems embedding PROCESS or CBL compile directives in
my COBOL source code, and they work as expected. We recently had a
problem with a CICS program that extracted EDSA usage numbers from
CICS, and it would not work correctly without TRUNC(BIN), which is
discouraged for performance reasons. If PROCESS/CBL commands could
not be specified in the COBOL source file, they would need to build a
special Endevor compile processor just for that one program.

(EDSA=Extended Dynamic Storage Area. The usage is reported in binary
fullwords, which are PIC S9(9) COMP in COBOL, but actually contained
values larger than the Picture clause. We have production CICS
regions with EDSA defined as 2 gigabytes).

Obviously, you don't want to use DYNAM with a CICS program, but that's
the only example I can think of off the top of my head that will
actually break a program. The local sysprogs wanted to discourage the
use of RENT in batch COBOL programs for performance reasons, but they
had to do some research to see if DB2 would still work.

Our Endevor is configured to compile the program only when it is first
ADDed, and all subsequent promotions through intermediate environments
and stages are moves of source and executable. We chose to move
rather than recompile at each step under the theory that recompiling a
program after testing and before implementing into PROD was too risky.

With kindest regards,

--
http://arnold.trembley.home.att.net/
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Jan 2008 11:45
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:39:12 GMT, Arnold Trembley
<arnold.trembley(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> They get ignored in Endevor's migration process. (I've tried it)
>
>I believe this is configurable with Endevor.

It is. But not by me.
From: tim Josling on 15 Jan 2008 15:15
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:45:49 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:39:12 GMT, Arnold Trembley
> <arnold.trembley(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> They get ignored in Endevor's migration process. (I've tried it)
>>
>>I believe this is configurable with Endevor.
>
> It is. But not by me.

By this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_Operator_From_Hell

Tim Josling
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Generate XML with attributes from a cobol copybook
Next: mainframe material