startup JCL to support DDNAME(xxx)

[colinpaicemq]

Customer content

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Ex. I'm always frustrated when [...]
No
Describe the solution you'd like
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

Today we have

XX* CONFIG= can be either a single path ex.
XX* CONFIG=/my/zowe.yaml
XX*
XX* Or a list of FILE() or PARMLIB() and colon : separated paths
XX* in the form of
XX*
XX* +------------ : ------------+
XX* V |
XX* >--+--FILE(ussPath)------------+--><
XX* | |
XX* +--PARMLIB(dsname(member))--+
XX*
XX* Example:
XX* CONFIG=FILE(/my/long/path/to/1.yaml)\
XX* :PARMLIB(ZOWE.PARMLIB(YAML))
XX*

It would be good to have DDNAME(ABCD) as well as CONFIG and PARMLIB

---

If I have more than one Zowe instance, I want to have some sections common, so they are the same on all systems.

I could create the parameters like
//ABCD DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON1)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON2)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(TLS)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(INSTAA1)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(INSTAA2)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(JAVANODE)
//* DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON4)

I would have each member such as TLS, with the TLS definitions, and the JAVANODE with just the Java and node statements

This would make it easier to configure, as you are editing only small files, and you do not need to scroll up and down inside the files.
It is easier to change one part of the configuration, so eaiser for change control etc

Describe alternatives you've considered
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.
An IBMCOPY

//IN DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON1)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON2)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(TLS)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(INSTAA1)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(INSTAA2)
// DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(JAVANODE)
//* DD DSN=MY.ZOWE(COMMON4)
//OUT DD DSN=IBMUSER.ZOWE1.DEFS(ONE)

and use

PARMLIB(IBMUSER.ZOWE1.DEFS(ONE))

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

---

Engineering team info (eg https://github.com/zowe/explorer-jes/issues/4)

As a [type of user],
I want [some goal]
so that [some reason].

Details/notes
[Detail - implementation notes]

Acceptance Criteria

*Scenario 1: [Title]
Given [context]
And [some more context]...
When [event]
Then [outcome]
 And [another outcome]...

[Martin-Zeithaml]

There is a PR in progress, which allows to use different parmlib member names, you can have one dataset with multiple members (acting like section) as needed. We are expecting to use current way, i.e. CONFIG statement in STDENV:

//STDENV   DD  *
_CEE_ENVFILE_CONTINUATION=\
CONFIG=PARMLIB(MY.ZOWE(COMMON1)):\
PARMLIB(MY.ZOWE(COMMON2)):\
PARMLIB(MY.ZOWE(TLS)):\
PARMLIB(MY.ZOWE(INSTAA1)):\
PARMLIB(MY.ZOWE(JAVANODE))
/*

It is a different feature, but will this help you?

[colinpaicemq]

I saw my solution of DDNAME -> list of DD statements in JCL as a simpler (less Zowe coding) solution (and less testing)

As a sysprog I often want to try out things so I would do

//MYPARM DD DSN=A.B(START)
//                 DD DSN=A.B(P1)
//                 DD DSN=A.B(P2)
//                 DD DSN=A.B(P3NEW)
//*               DD DSN=A.B(P3)
//                 DD DSN=A.B(P4)

Moving the comment is easy. with the solution you gave it is not quite so easy. How do I comment out a line ?

Personally I think "parmlib" is the wrong term and place. The definitions do not need to go into the system.parmlib. They need to go a ZOWE PDS. Only MVS related stuff should go into parmlib.

There are several reasons for this.
Many shops only allow a few people to update parmlib. If you (non MVS SYSPROG) want to update it you need to put in a change request, which can take a day or two.

Keeping the Zowe parms out of parmlib helps keep products separated. The Zowe team is responsible for Zowe definitions. It should not need an MVS person as well.

Using PARMLIB implies parmlib has to be used.
________________________________________-
I could also do

S ZOWE,PARM=ZOWE1
//ZOWE PROC,PARM=NONE
//MYPARMS DD DSN=ZOWE.PARMS(&PARM)

and so use one Job,and multiple parms to configure multiple Zowe systems.

[JoeNemo]

This would be a major change that would require serious consideration.

[colinpaicemq]

From an outside view it looks easier than doing multiple parmlib definitions ( multiple opens, reads etc). But not knowing the code - you may be right.