VB7R0007@SMUVM1.BITNET (Michael J. Stephens) (02/01/90)
Has anyone had problems with the fact that the voucher file is limited to only one institution group within a given CICS region? According to doc- umentation and practice it seems that the voucher file ddname, LTVCHR, is hard-coded in the system. This is at odds with the design of the rest of the system. Ddnames are coded in LC101TB1 and LC101TB2. While a minor annoyance for most, SMU included, this seems like a good area for change/ enhancement. Michael J. Stephens Sr. Systems Analyst Computer & Information Services Southern Methodist University Dallas, Tx. 75275 (214) 692-3453 Bitnet: VB7R0007@SMUVM1
WRT@CORNELLC.BITNET (Bill Turner, Cornell University Library) (02/02/90)
Since the voucher file exists only for communication with a batch job, I think it's fine that it have a fixed name and that all inst groups share it. Otherwise running the batch job would be more of a pain. We don't specify institution group for journals 3 and 6 either.
C81350JH@WUVMD.BITNET (Jeff Huestis) (02/02/90)
>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 09:24:04 CST >Sender: NOTIS/DOBIS discussion group list <NOTIS-L@TCSVM> >From: "Michael J. Stephens" <VB7R0007@SMUVM1.BITNET> >Subject: LTVCHR > >Has anyone had problems with the fact that the voucher file is limited to >only one institution group within a given CICS region? According to doc- >umentation and practice it seems that the voucher file ddname, LTVCHR, is >hard-coded in the system. This is at odds with the design of the rest of >the system. Ddnames are coded in LC101TB1 and LC101TB2. While a minor >annoyance for most, SMU included, this seems like a good area for change/ >enhancement. > There are a number of places where recent releases of NOTIS have departed from the original design, particularly of the Institutional tables. In some cases, this has been necessary because of limits in the original design. LC660TBL would be one example of this; LTVCHR is another. Hopefully, renumbering 4.7 to 5.0 reflects the intent to correct this problem, rather than just being a marketing technique. On the other hand, most of the departures seem to be in the nature of short-cuts--hardcoding things that were supposed to be table-driven. I'm surprised that no one has ever complained about the treatment of patron ID status codes in LC530 and LC532. Maybe no one else cares. Jeff Huestis Washington University