On 3 January 2012 19:35, Gerard Nicol <gerard.ni...@tapetrack.com> wrote:
> I can't believe that IBM didn't provide a APPC connection to their TCP > address space, if they did you could just IEBEGENER data to a remote SMTP > server (or other service) from JCL without having to spool the data or > extend JCL. Please do show how this would look using APPC. I'm not familiar with anything like your socket DD. > That has to be a trivial amount of programming for a huge increase in > capability. Well, perhaps. But there are many options to consider if you want something like your //SYSUT2 DD SOCKET=5000 If something like IEBGENER (or presumably any QSAM/BSAM using program) is going to be able to make use of it, you need to be able to specify how records are translated into a byte stream, and a few other things: - where is the data going? Don't you need more than just SOCKET=, e.g. IP=n.n.n.n or a DNS-resolvable name? - do you want line ending sequences inserted, and if so, which ones? CR, CRLF, NL, LF,...? - do you want character set translation, and if so, which from and to code pages? - do you want RDWs or the like to indicate record lengths? In what far-end-friendly format? - do you want TCP, UDP, or something else? - what should happen when something goes wrong? -- no one is listening at the far end? -- the far end refuses the connection? -- the near end won't permit you to bind to the port? -- etc. - if you've chosen TCP (or another reliable protocol) do you want a timeout, and if so, how should it be indicated to IEBGENER? These are certainly not unanswerable questions, but for almost all cases a fair bit more information than SOCKET=5000 would have to be provided. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
