The new platform is mainframe Java Nobody cares about dinos
> On Dec 24, 2020, at 12:36 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 08:44:09 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: > >> I would never presume to tell IBM what to do, but if I were responsible for >> the "MVS Services" documentation I would start with a preamble much like >> @Gil describes in which I said "unless otherwise specified, callers must be >> ..." and covered ASC, SRB/TCB, AMODE, RMODE, problem/supervisor, etc. >> >> It need not be negative "callers cannot be above the bar" or "not SRB" but >> rather positive "callers must invoke the services from below the bar, in TCB >> mode, etc." If IBM were theoretically to add some new MVS "mode" in the >> future -- a third alternative to TCB/SRB or a new AMODE or whatever -- it >> would not be necessary to change the write-up for every service, only to add >> one sentence to this preamble (and change the write-ups for services that >> actually supported the new mode). >> >>> Do you think there is anyone in the IBM world who needs that sentence? >> >> Yes, new entrants to the IBM world. We do want new entrants, don't we? >> Without them, the platform dies as we retire. The platform dies as CIO's >> perceive that it is not possible to hire staff to support the platform. >> > Well said. I attempted to avoid any aura of negativity by saying "may" > where you properly said "unless ... must", and I left Peter to assume the > readers would infer the contrapositive. > > A few points: > o As z/OS grows in complexity, the needed documentation and its cost > grows proportionally, perhaps quadratically. > o It becomes increasingly unlikely that a typical user has the needed > background information. > o The cost of providing adequate documentation should be factored > into the business case for new features, not used as an excuse for > not providing it. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Relson >> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 7:02 AM >> <snip> >> Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by "blanket statement": >> a single affirmative sentence in the Introduction to the manual, "Any >> service described herein may be invoked from a location below 2 GiB." >> </snip> >> >> Do you think there is anyone in the IBM world who needs that sentence? It >> might be thought that things prevalent by MVS/XA (the late 70's) are >> "known" and need not be stated. >> >> Regardless, such a statement is not what I read your previous post to >> suggest. >> >> <snip> >>>> VERY FEW system services officially support invocation in RMODE 64. If >>>> they don't say that they do, then do not assume that they do. >>>> ... >> Is there a blanket statement to this effect in the relevant manual(s)? >> </snip> >> >> To me, that asks about a negative statement. Such a statement might have >> been "No service may be invoked from a location >= 2G unless it explicitly >> is documented that it allows that". As I mentioned previously, we do not >> typically have such negative statements. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
