Skip to main content
Status: Declined

Thanks for the IDEA Johan. Unfortunately after doing more research, this will cause major rewrite and could introduce risk. Based on that, we'll have to decline this request.

As compilers (COBOL and PL1) are now using integrated pre-compilers one can end up from 1 source with multiple DBRMs that will need to be bound in the same  physical DB2

 

 
 

We are migrating to COBOL 6.2 and Enterprise PL1 5.2 and our going to be using the integrated CICS and DB2 pre-compiler

As in certain cases sources are compiled multiple times depending the addressing mode or type of execution environment one might end up with possible three different DBRMs origintaing from the same source.

From and administrative level in Changeman one could create a logical environment in the physical DB2 (one for each type of DBRM)

Unfortuantely ZMF doesn't support this. Right now this has been cicumvented through skeleton customisation, but this should be out of the box.

Are there any othe customers that have encountered the same issue resulting in skeleton customisation

 
 
Status: Declined

Thanks for the IDEA Johan. Unfortunately after doing more research, this will cause major rewrite and could introduce risk. Based on that, we'll have to decline this request.

As compilers (COBOL and PL1) are now using integrated pre-compilers one can end up from 1 source with multiple DBRMs that will need to be bound in the same  physical DB2

 

 
 

We are migrating to COBOL 6.2 and Enterprise PL1 5.2 and our going to be using the integrated CICS and DB2 pre-compiler

As in certain cases sources are compiled multiple times depending the addressing mode or type of execution environment one might end up with possible three different DBRMs origintaing from the same source.

From and administrative level in Changeman one could create a logical environment in the physical DB2 (one for each type of DBRM)

Unfortuantely ZMF doesn't support this. Right now this has been cicumvented through skeleton customisation, but this should be out of the box.

Are there any othe customers that have encountered the same issue resulting in skeleton customisation

 
 
ENH330599 has been opened to progress this request.