Re: IBM's CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration

In various sites, I've seen differences in compile options at different
stages. Sometimes this was deliberate, other times it was based on history.
I believe the options should be set once for all levels - and overrides used
if at all necessary.

With ChangeMan, you compile once for the lowest level of the promotion path,
and the source and load module are copied (in tandem) through each level of
the path. With Endevor, you compile at each level of the promotion path -
and with that comes the risk that the options >may< not be the same. I
believe SCLM handles things the same way that ChangeMan does. I can't speak
for other products.

One of the aspects of this Enterprise COBOL migration that I want to ensure
is that the options are a) reviewed, b) understood in context, and c)
standardized across promotion levels. Because I'm still idealistic, I'd
like them to be consistent across applications (but I know better)....

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems, Inc.

In most cases, I believe application programmers start with their own
"home-grown" JCL. Once they get through a couple of desk checks, they have
to load it into Endevor for unit testing. At that point, the change
management system's load libraries are used
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46FBF7A6.6F0F.0085.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 9/27/2007 at 5:54 PM, in message <6pXKi.4058$Wo4.771@trnddc03>,
Larry
Kahm<lkahm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Frank,

No misunderstanding, just a different point of view....

I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile
process
in the change management system. In your case, since it was a known
issue,
I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or
Endevor panel. It remains associated with your program from then on.

In the assignment I'm still bidding on, the original developers are
undoubtedly long gone and the offshore talent may or may not know what
to do
about certain options. If I can find something that's "hidden" and
expose
it during conversion, I've placed the decision point closer to the
programmer - and the project office. Once it is known, they can document


the choice in the change management product when they compile the
program.

Sounds like our change management software is simply lacking when it comes
to those capabilities. With those capabilities in place your usage of
them
sounds quite reasonable.

When compiling for testing are you still able to access change management
in
order to make sure that your test compiles have the same compile options
as
your production compiles?

Frank





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IBMs CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration
    ... in TEST and sometimes SSRANGE at unit testing levels. ... With ChangeMan, you compile once for the lowest level of the promotion path, ... load it into Endevor for unit testing. ... At that point, the change management ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: IBMs CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration
    ... I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile ... the choice in the change management product when they compile the ... With those capabilities in place your usage of them ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: IBMs CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration
    ... I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile process ... in the change management system. ... the choice in the change management product when they compile the program. ... compile options are standardized in the change management product. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Project proposal -- Forth project organiser
    ... they compile a call to an error routine instead. ... You load the file and each new defined word gets ... lot easier if people who write libraries do it your way. ... input buffer and check that it isn't a keeper word that hasn't been ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: How to load and clear files?
    ... You can just load new definitions to replace the old ones. ... by the old name in the lisp image, ... CLISP is written in portable C code: you can compile it on almost any ... or:EXECUTE to precise your idea. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)