Re: Cannot Add a logical file member. Not sure why

[Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It's the first time I have come across it.  I have never seen a case 
where the logical and physical didn't reside in the same library but 
then, I have only been around the box for 30 years or so and have lived 
a sheltered life  ;-)

Yeah, it makes sense on one level.  Maybe an additional parameter on the 
create duplicate object for *file types would be helpful.

Pete Helgren
Value Added Software, Inc
www.asaap.com
www.opensource4i.com


On 10/27/2010 6:25 AM, Charles Wilt wrote:
> Pete,
>
> The box has always worked like that.
>
> Consider, create DUPLICATE object....technically a byte for byte
> duplicate of a logical would _always_ point to the same PF the
> original did.  IBM decide to make our lives a little easier by having
> it check to see if the original logical and the physical file it
> pointed to were in the same library.  If so and if the destination
> library had a physical of the same name, then the duplicate of the
> logical would point to the physical in the destination library.
>
> In all other cases, the duplicate of the logical continues to point to
> the same PF the original did, as that results in an accurate
> duplicate.  Could it have been smarter?  Perhaps, but then you'd end
> up with a whole mess of behaviors to remember and somebody would still
> complain.
>
> HTH,
> Charles
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Pete Helgren<pete@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > The PF only had a single member and, after the CRTLF and the failure to
> > add a member, the LF had no members at all.  So, I am not sure what the
> > RMVM and ADDLFM would have bought me. Ken seems to think that using
> > CRTDUPOBJ on a logical when that logical and the referenced physical are
> > in two different libraries won't work *IF* the resulting physical and
> > logical are going to be in the same library.  That has been my
> > experienced. I'd rather use CRTDUPOBJ to create the logical so that I
> > don't have to deal with level checks anyway.
> >
> > Still scratching my head on this one.  But, I have a work around.
> >
> > Pete Helgren
> > Value Added Software, Inc
> > www.asaap.com
> > www.opensource4i.com
> >
> >
> > On 10/26/2010 2:30 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > An alternative would have been to RMVM and ADDLFM.
> > > If the PF is multimember (shudder) you just created a LF over all the
> > > members.
> > >
> > > The advantage of not recreating the LF from source is that you do not lose
> > > any security or other unique properties that may have been on the file in
> > > the production library.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Berendt
> > --
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.