Chris Mason said > I would regard SUB=MSTR to be anything but bizarre and > rather more the normal way of things than having to bother with a > complicated "subsystem" environment. It's only when your program does > exceptional things such as needing, say, a SYSIN file that a spooling > subsystem becomes useful. > > Probably I got this attitude by having to wrestle with system startup > automation where, for example, the NetView SSI task and an "automation" > NetView task needed to be started at an early stage with SUB=MSTR so that > they could manage the starting of address spaces such as, well, JES2.
Yeah I agree. I'm an infrastructure guy. Most of my own code has always run SUB=MSTR to support automation so that the automation product can start right after master scheduler and then drive the rest of the start-up sequence. And of course, it has to be able to hang around after JES goes during shutdown for much the same reason. However SUB=JES is the default and most of the code you would typically run on a z/OS image runs under the JES subsystem whether it needs to or not. From an ISV point of view it is quite common to get customer push-back when you run things under MSTR because they either don't understand what that really means, or they assume you're up to no good. "Oh well". CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
