On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 16:19:52 -0400, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't understand "because automation loses control of storage management". >Can you elaborate? . I don't know the internals of ooRexx so I can't state what will be a problem. Remember that automation is a system critical product that can adversely affect your z/OS system and potentially your sysplex. Customers find delays and outages are unacceptable for automation. The concept of objects in automation is extremely enticing. Imagine offloading the workload of an LPAR to the other LPAR's in the sysplex. You're dealing with CICS, IMS, batch, Unix, network and more. Consider storage persistence in products like automation and CICS which are shared multi-tasking environments where storage leaks can be deadly affecting hundreds of users. Far worse is automation that must remain active until the next IPL which for some z/OS systems can be several months. With the introduction of ooRexx features like Objects and pointers, a motivated programmer can easily implement persistent objects in less than 1 minute. You write an HLASM program to obtain / release the persisten storage. Managing this storage is solely controlled by the customer with a very real potential for a storage leak. Worse yet, there is the potential storage overlays if something goes wrong cause complete failure automation failure. Remember that automation has it's fingers in everything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
