CA Endevor

Expand all | Collapse all

To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

Jump to Best Answer
  • 1.  To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

    Posted 03-05-2020 09:56 AM
    Here is a trivial practice question that I'm curious as to what the greater Endevor community might think....

    Many processors are written so that one of the FIRST steps is to execute CONWRITE to fetch a copy of the source to be processed.

    Now the question:

    Should you leave that step in if you are using unencrypted Reverse-Base-Delta and a PDS/PDSE as your base library? Or do you just go against the base library?

    I know what MY thoughts are but I'm curious about yours! :)

    ------------------------------
    Consultant
    John D Consulting Inc.
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)
    Best Answer

    Posted 03-05-2020 10:04 AM
    Hi John,
    I am not a fan of redundancy, so if your Type definitions indicate REVERSE UNENCRYPTED settings, the CONWRITE would be redundant.  Using the &C1BASELIB symbolic for input would certainly replace the CONWRITE step.

    However, if you are NOT 100% positive that ALL your types are REVERSE etc. then CONWRITE might be required.

    So, the real answer would be "it depends"?

    Bernie Beriau

    ------------------------------
    Endevor Administrator
    CA Technologies/Broadcom
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

    Posted 03-05-2020 10:21 AM
    Can one ever be sure? :)

    ------------------------------
    Consultant
    John D Consulting Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

    Posted 03-06-2020 10:48 AM
    Hi John,
      I agree with Bernie if the Type definition has REVERSE UNENCRYPTED - eliminate the step. It simplifies the processor and reduces overhead - less steps, less temp data set management. I know the new machines are wicked fast but a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there....

    June


    ------------------------------
    Principal Support Engineer
    Broadcom
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

    Posted 03-06-2020 05:02 PM

    We do .. lots of ++INCLUDE code leftover from panvalet. 

     

    Karen

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error,
    please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. 
    This email transmission may contain confidential information.  This
    information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to
    whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly.  Please delete it from
    your files if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you for your
    compliance.  Copyright (c) 2020 Cigna
    ==============================================================================






  • 6.  RE: To CONWRITE or not to CONWRITE... THAT is the question! :)

    Posted 03-06-2020 11:26 AM

    Here's a scenario, what if you did use the &C1BASELIB and the member had been updated outside of Endevor?

    In the processor, I would assume it just would use that library member and go on but not 100% sure.

    If you were using CONWRITE to get a copy of the source from Endevor, I would assume that the step would have a condition code to advise you that the footprint had been compromised.

    Also with CONWRITE you could expand include modules with the source to pass to the next step.

    Sorry don't have time to set up a test for this, so just throwing out some "What IF"  questions. 



    ------------------------------
    Software Engineer
    Enterprise Technology
    Fiserv
    Ky, USA
    ------------------------------