Joined: 06 Jul 2010 Posts: 765 Location: Whitby, ON, Canada
The other bogus excuse for not using ISPF facilities is: "it adds too much overhead". So they end up writing an extra 500 lines of code to do what ISPF services can do with one call.
Joined: 03 Oct 2009 Posts: 1788 Location: Bloomington, IL
chaoj wrote:
and because the ISPF lib in develop environment is different from the product environment in my side, so I need write JCL twice . This is my reason for not use ISPF service if I call rexx code in JCL.
Unlike every other library in your development environment?
My current client's development and test environments are on different sysplexes than its production environments. Still, the libraries (and all other data sets) have different HLQs.
and because the ISPF lib in develop environment is different from the product environment in my side, so I need write JCL twice . This is my reason for not use ISPF service if I call rexx code in JCL.
stupid reason not to use the ISPF functionalities
I have never seen (*) BATCH ISPF execution use nothing more than the basic ISPF libraries
and just the user load and rexx/clist libraries
(*) I have been using REXX and ISPF since their appearance on the scene
a few hundreds scripts and couple dozen customers
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Posts: 2547 Location: Silicon Valley
Quote:
So they end up writing an extra 500 lines of code to do what ISPF services can do with one call.
Actually, I think that in some instances the overhead is a valid concern (though your results may vary). If the program is doing something repeatedly, then your 500 lines of code may be better than one call to ISPF services. That one call to ISPF services may result in executing thousands of lines of ISPF's code.
