New Video: Introduction to VSAM for Assembler Programmers

Here is a shoutout to Ravi Cheepa for suggesting I needed to add some VSAM material to the site. I’ll start with this video that contains some basic information about VSAM and its macros: ACB, RPL, EXLST, PUT, GET, MODCB, …

I’ve always thought that looking at code is the best way for programmers to learn, so I’ll follow this up with a series of demo programs that do something interesting and efficiently. I’ll also add some video to explain the programs and why the techniques they use are efficient. More soon …

5 Comments

Filed under IBM Mainframe Assembler

5 responses to “New Video: Introduction to VSAM for Assembler Programmers

  1. M Hopper

    You might also consider adding VTAM coding as the VSAM macros are derived from VTAM. That is to say that you have more than 75% of the basics, e.g., control block hierarchy to hand.

  2. Wow, VTAM! Not much call for it, but could be very interesting as another topic for another day.
    http://ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.1.0?topic=language-summary-description-vtam-macroinstructions
    VSAM is hard enough already for those who’ve never used it. What made VSAM easier for me was to take as many defaults as possible. Then you learn what “comes naturally” to VSAM. It also makes the code much easier to read and understand. When it comes to code (not comments!) my rule if thumb is: If you CAN leave it out, DO leave it out. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  3. Melvyn Maltz

    I think you’ll find that VSAM preceded VTAM by several years
    The control block structure of VTAM hasn’t any relationship to VSAM at all
    It is unfortunate that VTAM decided to acquire the use of the ACB and RPL for its own use

    If you leave stuff out, you won’t get what you’ve asked for…best watch the video and read the Manuals

    Melvyn Maltz

    • @Melvyn “๐ˆ๐Ÿ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฅ๐ž๐š๐ฏ๐ž ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฎ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ, ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ง’๐ญ ๐ ๐ž๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ’๐ฏ๐ž ๐š๐ฌ๐ค๐ž๐ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ…”. But if you “leave stuff out” then you haven’t actually “asked for” anything, right? What you get is what the system *gives you* automatically. That’s the key! Knowing what the system *gives you* without having to *ask for it*. There’s a lot of stuff like that, and defaults don’t get to be defaults for no reason. Where they exist, you can be sure the designers already put a lot of thought into what the best values should be. So if you choose to *override* their judgment, not only do you risk getting it wrong, but also discover your very best effort is usually what the system gives you automatically.
      A couple of non-VSAM examples (off-topic, I know, but just to illustrate the principle).
      Someone I know once added a field to a Print file where AFTER ADVANCING was used with the ADV Compile option. He got called in after hours on a COBOL abend because the LRECL in the JCL didn’t match the expected value. While the system waited, he spent a couple of very frustrating hours trying various Compile options and LRECL values to come up with something that worked, which he finally did. But if he’d just *left out* the LRECL, COBOL would have supplied the correct value automatically! The very best value he could come up with (the one that worked) was the exact same value the system would have given him automatically. In fact, with COBOL, if you specify anything *other than* what COBOL calculates, you’ll get an abend. So, just leave it out.
      We also have a bunch of code in which the author (now retired) had a penchant for using explicit lengths with things like COMMAREA, KEYLENGTH, SEND MAP, BIF DEEDIT, etc. But these are things the Translator and Compiler will calculate for you! And again, the very best value you can specify happens to be the exact same value you get if you let the system do it for you. So, I am now removing all these explicit lengths, with the result that they are now “future proof”. If they ever change, instead of having to track them all down and change them all (there are hundreds scattered all over) I can trust the system to make the changes for me. ๐Ÿ˜‰
      Aha! I see a pattern forming here. By letting go a bit and trusting the system to supply the correct values, you can save yourself a lot of trouble, have applications that are robust, not fragile, and have code that’s simpler, easier to understand and maintain.
      So, let the default be your first choice. And *only* if the default doesn’t give you what you need, *then* try to find something better.
      “If the default fits, take it!”

  4. Melvyn Maltz

    >>>Knowing what the system *gives you* without having to *ask for it*
    This is the crux of the matter, some products like COBOL and CICS may have defaults which you can rely on, but it’s important that you “know” what the system gives you…as you said

    >>>defaults donโ€™t get to be defaults for no reason
    >>>If the default fits, take it!
    With products like VSAM and CICS, defaults have no real purpose
    It is always better to specify all relevant parms whether defaulted or not, just for clarity

    An example…
    I want to read a KSDS by generic key…all of these work
    RPL…OPTCD=(GEN,ARD,FWD,NWAITX )
    RPL…OPTCD=GEN
    RPL…OPTCD=(KEY,GEN)
    But I know the one I’d like to read in code that wasn’t mine ๐Ÿ™‚

Leave a Reply to dstaudacher Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.