Pat There *is* a difference in the support for "inserts" between the VTAM implementation and the TN3270 implementation. This is confirmed by the "Summary of Changes" in the Communications Server IP Resource Definition Reference for the V1R8 edition of the manual - as well as botched [1] additional text with revision bars in the description of the LUNAME|SCAN suboperand.
It is also confirmed by a section in the New Functions Summary manual for V1R8 ... <quote> | 2.2.8 Telnet enhancements | In z/OS V1R8 Communications Server, Telnet is enhanced in the following | ways: ... | System symbolics are recognized by Telnet USSMSG processing. | System-specific symbols, such as the system name, are displayed on the | USSMSG10 screen and can be useful diagnostic information. ... </quote> ... even if it is wrong in detail: the MVS system symbols are *not* shown in USS message 10 unless the systems programmer takes the trouble to code one or two or more in the text of the USS message 10 - or, of course, any other of the USS messages, USS message 5 being a prime candidate if RFC 2355 had been defined correctly! Presumably the author of this text got a garbled explanation of what to say and nobody bothered to review it! My initial reaction to all of this was exactly yours, namely that whatever is implemented for USS in VTAM will be implemented for USS in the TN3270 server and vice versa. Wrong! Also this difference is not dependent on the coding of the actual macros in the same way that the "inserts" beginning with "@" do not have any impact on the macro coding. It seems that the MVS system symbols are also treated as "inserts" based on an ampersand character being found in the text. One point that isn't mentioned in the botched text - or even my suggested replacement - is that the text - starting with an ampersand - will have the name of an MVS system symbol of a certain length. The text which replaces it may well have a different length. What effect does this have on the message text string? If what is substituted is smaller, is the remainder padded out with blanks? If what is substituted is larger, is the following text overwritten? If so, it would appear an adequate number of blanks had better follow the MVS system symbol. It looks like some testing is needed and a considerable improvement in how this enhancement is described. Recall that the "inserts" which start with "@" are padded with more "@" characters to the (maximum) length of the text which will be inserted so that there will be no displacement of following text. Chris Mason [1] See an earlier post where I suggest a more logical version of the description of the LUNAME|SCAN suboperand. On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:05:03 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:02:42 -0500, Chris Mason <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Martin >> >>Note that there is only one set of USS macros and they some from a VTAM >>distribution library, SISTMAC1. >> >>> The IP reference, however, also indicates that you can use system >>>symbols, whereas the SNA reference does not. >>... > >It's important to remember that even though the same USStab load >module can the used by both VTAM and the Tn3270 server, different >code processes the table. VTAM development could have have put >support in the macros for functions supported only by the Tn3270 >server. It's sort of unlikely that they did that. It's much more likely >that the doc and the code are out of synch. > >Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
