Bill The key word here may be "exit".
I have no experience with RACF exits but I do - or used to - with VTAM exits - and those of some related products. My understanding of an "exit" is that it is a point in the supplied product code where a customer might want to impose some logic which cannot be handled by supplying values to the product customisation parameters. This interpretation anyhow applies to the VTAM "exits". Out of the abundant kindness of their hearts, VTAM developers have supplied *samples* for some - perhaps all by now - of the VTAM exits. In the case of the Configuration Services exit, ISTEXCCS, the *sample* exit was structured in such a way that the customer could supply a table in order to control what was anticipated to be a particular likely way that the exit would be used, the logic for which being reflected - obviously - in the coding of the supplied *sample* exit. Customers could certainly be excused thinking that the *sample* had a higher status than was originally intended by the extensive use of particularly this exit in SNA "how-to" redbooks. Nevertheless, it was always my understanding that the purpose of those *sample* exits was to inspire a customer systems programmer in implementing his or her own exit according to any specific local requirements. In other words, the *sample* exit was *not* to be regarded as a part of the supplied product having the same status with regard to support as the rest. Thus, given the assumptions above, it is no surprise to me that RACF have not "revisited" the supplied assumed to be *sample* exit in order to ensure it conforms to the best coding practices probably several years on from when it was first offered to no doubt grateful system programmers needing a bit of help to get them started with their own efforts. Chris Mason P.S. "Assembler Question" is a rather weak thread title[1] and, as may have been predicted, it has allowed enormous "drift". The main "branch" appears to have become yet another "memory lane" stroll with packed picnic hampers remembering the glorious summers of yesteryear ... [1] About as weak as "USS Question" which - right on cue - appeared at about the same time as a thread where one poor confused soul was trying to reconcile "USS" meaning VTAM's "Unformatted System Services" with "UNIX System Services" - essentially how does the text string entered in the "USS screen" map to an assumed UNIX-style "executable"? - confusion worse confounded! On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:28:56 -0500, Bill Planer <[email protected]> wrote: >Before IBM makes a hardware change that impacts the performance of BAL/BALR, >perhaps they should scrape their macros clean of these instructions. I just >assembled an exit that uses the RACROUTE macro, and it still uses BALR (z/OS >1.9). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
