j?rg brehe wrote:
> This time I get an S413/4
Hmmm, I think either I'm missing something fundamental in trying to
understand your scenario, or you're missing something fundamental.
A DD (Data Definition) name is what we (in OS-***-MVS circles) call
a file name. Computer scientists might call it a logical file name.
A data set name is a physical file name. When a file is OPENed the
logical file (the thing the program knows about) is bound to the
physical file (the thing the file system knows about).
So, we OPEN a DDname (or file) which is allocated to a data set.
As a result the data set is opened. BUT, a file can be a concatenation
of data sets, and so we come to your particular situation. In JCL, the
DDname of each (non-first) file in a concatenation is blank.
So what?
So, you cannot OPEN each data set in a concatenation with individual
OPEN macros because you do not have a DDname to supply OPEN with for
each data set in the concatenation.
All you have is the DDname of the first data set which actually refers
to ALL data sets in the concatenation.
If you are not dynamically allocating a new DD to each data set and
saving the DDname for later use in OPEN macros then you cannot OPEN
each data set in separate OPENs.
I did not analyze you code in detail, but I do not see any allocation
calls. AFAICT each OPEN in the loop opens the file called RECINDD.
You can have more than one DCB open for a given file, but it seems
you do not want multiple files open for RECINDD, you want one DCB
open for each data set in the RECINDD concatenation.
But OPEN does not know about data sets, it only knows about DDs.
If you want to treat each data set as a separate file, then each data
set needs it own (unique) DDname.
Do we agree on this?
BTW, are we talking DASD or TAPE files here? I am assuming DASD, but
a definitive statement from you would remove any doubt on this.
(Perhaps you wish to handle both, or even a mixture. After all, both
device class can have sequential files.)
One could ask why you need a separate DD open for each data set, but
then you could say "because I want to".
You seem to be saying that you have customers who have concatenated
data sets in a file, and that the data sets are sequential. Further,
you need to receive control when a data set change occurs.
Would Jerry Peters' suggestion of setting the UNLIKE concatenation
bit in the DCB achieve what you need? This would certainly be
easier that allocating each data set in the concatenation, I think.
Cheers,
Greg
|
