shmuel+...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes: > Was that the reason, or was it because PCP and MFT[1] did not have > ATTACH? > > [1] MFT eventually got ATTACH, but that came later.
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#78 Familiar possibly before I saw it, don't really know. betatest for product was 1969 ... not sure what they were doing (at site where it was developed) prior to that ... so it would have been at least Release 18 (and university had moved from MFT to MVT at release 15/16; aka release 15 had slipped so far ... that it eventually shipped from IBM as double release). however, major heavy weight (besides avoiding TCB tasking) was OPEN/CLOSE for task. CICS did batch open at startup ... disk accesses and pathlength for OPEN/CLOSE would have swamped typical task disk accesses and execution time. First bug I shot was OPEN ... implementation stuffed some bits in DCB fields for specific BDAM options. Library was using different set of BDAM options, the OPEN would fail and couldn't get it started. I had to zap some instructions to stop the DCB field fiddling in the CICS code. misc. past posts mentioning BDAM &/or CICS: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#cics -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
