This is a tangent but I'm curious. Are there any other product "components" out there where the exit function has the same characteristics as two VTAM exits I got to use a lot - if only in a teaching environment?
These are the "Configuration Services", ISTEXCCS, exit and the "Dynamic Definition of Dependent LUs", ISTEXCSD, exit. CS SNA, formerly VTAM, development supply sample exits. Both of these samples are quite usable as they are. The former is a bit crude but the latter has a simple solid implementation that would be hard to improve upon and even has a PU statement operand, LUSEED, to support it. Both the exits are strongly supported functionally since development goes to the trouble of providing and maintaining model statements for both. I just checked to be sure and, indeed, the sample exit code is supported since I found an APAR against ISTEXCCS. I didn't find an APAR for ISTEXCSD but it's so simple that it would be impossible to make a mistake (wouldn't it?). The "fix" for ISTEXCCS was because the developer, perhaps unused to having actually to use raw Assembler for the sample exit, performed a data manipulation was an injudicious instruction (OW38865). Another APAR against ISTEXCCS appeared to show the sample exit being enhanced in order to support new function.(OW56878) Thus the "characteristics" of the exit is that the function is supplied with a maintained sample. A sort-of related peculiarity is that, in z/OS V1.7, manuals that were previously not available in the IBM library web pages - currently down as it happens - suddenly appeared. This included the CS SNA Customization manual where the exits and their samples are described. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> Sent: Sunday, 02 April, 2006 6:37 AM Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit > >On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise, > and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention > the mutts >... ;-) > > I agree wholeheartedly. However, my comments were intended to address > the issue that somehow the vendor was supposed to provide all these > services so that the customer wouldn't be inconvenienced for having made > customized changes. > > Regarding another post where the vendor was suggested to be CA instead > of IBM ... I don't see any difference. When a customer customizes a > product and/or writes program code to exploit an API, then the onus is > on them to maintain the expertise and take on the responsibility of > maintaining such code into the future. > > Adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
