Walt,
My primary thought was IRREVX01, my fear was what LE enablement would do to the exit,performance, re-entrancy etc. I wasn't sure. I know that ICHPWX11 has an assembler stub calling rexx, I saw that .. We are thinking about writing a ICHRCX01 exit., I wasn't sure if I should write in Assembler , my first choice or Metal C.. The exit being a possibility part of new product I really cant go into it much here. Our products primary use three exits, ICHPWX01, ICHRIX02 and IRREVX01 .. Trust me I wont put something out without Beta testing, etc. I am extremely careful. I have been ask about C stuff by management for maintainability. So I have to formulate a answer based on facts and opinions I know and trust. Regards, Scott From: Walt Farrell Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:50 PM To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List You say "several" exits, which has me a bit concerned, Scott. Which exits, exactly? IRREVX01 may well work work if coded in C, and even if coded LE-enabled. But for many other RACF exits I would be very surprised if they would work in C, unless it's Metal C. And for those other exits I would be flabbergasted if LE-enabled C would work. Even for IRREVX01 I would be uncomfortable with the thought of LE-enabled C, given that it could (I think) have negative consequences when the RACF commands are run in the RACF subsystem STC, so I think Metal C would be better there. I will admit, though, that I've never tried any flavor of C personally for system exits. -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
