Gil and Mark, Thanks for the information you have been supplying on this issue. As I am the original poster, I thought that since I finally have my head above water for a few minutes, I'd share some of where I came from to get myself in the mess I was with regard to receivefromnetwork and SMPJHOME.
I am currently running z/OS 1.4 in production. When I ordered z/OS 1.7 some time back, I messed up and somehow ordered JAVA 1.3 along with it. I have 1.7 running in my sandbox so when I started looking at the RECEIVEFROMNETWORK capabilities I ordered the JAVA upgrade to prepare my new 1.7 system for doing later orders (like z/OS 1.10 this fall). I saw in the CBPDO Internet Delivery Installation Checklist that I needed either JAVA 1.4.2 or ISCF to do straight to "Z" transfers and since I had neither, I downloaded it to my workstation then up to the "Z" for processing. The next step I did was to use the GIMUNZIP process for "exploding" the pax files of the DOCLIB, RIMLIB, and PGMDIR files. The documentation in the GIMUNZIP sample job said "If you are using SMP/E level 34.09 or higher, uncomment the SMPJHOME and SMPCPATH DD Statements. If you are at SMP/E 3.4, it is recommended you be at least 34.09." Well, being the believing soul that I am, I followed the directions and made sure I had these DDDEFs defined in my GLOBAL zone, pointing the SMPJHOME DDDEF at my (then) current JAVA 1.3 library, not knowing that the mere presence of the SMPJHOME DDDEF would cause my RECEIVE job to blow up. So bottom line, I followed IBM documentation and that was at least a contributor to my RECEIVE problem. I don't know if you (Gil) want to put any of this in the PMR that you have open with IBM or not. Thanks. Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Catch-22 question on SMP/E receive fromnts command On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:38:02 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:08:06 -0600, Paul Gilmartin >wrote: >> >>>If he had opened a PMR (he still can) this can get fixed. >> >>Is Kurt Q. listening? >> He will be. >But why should it care and try to "start" GIMJVCLT if it is not needed. >It should be no different than adding an //BSDD to IEBGENER. > It's different. Some products properly make judgments based on the presence of particular DD statements. I wonder what happens if one tries (I havent): //STEPLIB DD * or //SYSUDUMP DD * I suspect that //BSDD would likewise not affect SMP/E; //SMPJHOME does. PMR Record 76547,033,000 submitted; SEV4; requesting closure SUG. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
