Charles:
I agree that documentation is poor to non existent on most all of
POSIX items. TCP manual stinks is the best thing I can say They also
violated IBM rules on the messages in so many ways I gave up after
listing the problems and going into an IBM discussion about it. The
word I got and it was no way an official IBM position was that the
POSIX people got a blank check (almost) for the rules and almost 20
years later people are starting to wake up and finally see how we got
screwed because of the blank check.
Another example is the SMPE packaging that JAVA violates the rules.
It used to be the dreaded mega PTF VSAM tape(S?) that IBM used to put
out now its one small APAR requires a re release of JAVA.
Ed
On Sep 11, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Thanks. Agree with what you say about business. What's to disagree
with?
I find that "x requires y" is a general lack in the USS etc.
documentation. I couldn't find "POSIX(ON) requires an OMVS segment"
anywhere either. (Believe it or not, I searched TFM before posting
what I wrote below.) But I suspect it does. *We* document that our
product requires an OMVS segment -- why would it be so hard for the
POSIX(ON) team to do the same thing?
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How tell if have OMVS Segment
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]>
wrote:
Thanks all.
1. Source language is C++. I know how to call an "assembler"
function from C++. It seems odd to me that IBM would make such a
basic OMVS function available to assembler programs but only "by
the way" available to C programs, but whatever.
2. Definitely no Rexx involved.
3. I have this nagging fear that the problem is that because the
program is compiled #pragma RUNOPTS(POSIX(ON)) that as a result LE
is failing it before my first "user" instruction executes, and
therefore I have no ability to issue a more user-friendly message
than a U4093 ABEND. I am trying to confirm that. I am currently
wrestling with an internal "you can't get there from here"
situation relative to testing with a no-OMVS-segment userid. Does
anyone happen to *know* whether this is the case? That POSIX(ON)
means LE requires an OMVS segment during program LE initialization?
I cannot find a simple document which says something like: "A
POSIX(ON) application requires that an OMVS segment exist for the
RACF id which is running the application". I can see this:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/
ceea91c0/1.407
<quote>
CEE3632I POSIX(ON) run-time option specified and the UNIX System
Services
feature is not available on the underlying operating
system.
</quote>
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/
ceea91c0/1.531
<quote>
CEE5002S POSIX function was not available. UNIX System Services
were not
started.
</quote>
From which, one can conclude that using POSIX(ON) requires z/OS
UNIX System Services be available. Which requires, at least in z/OS
V1R13+, that the RACF user under which the program is running must
have an OMVS segment.
I wish IBM wouldn't do this. Logically, a U4093/90 ABEND is no
different from an error message, but it does not work that way
with customer psychology. We send out a trial package, the
customer runs the product (and yes, we document the need for an
OMS segment, but who reads documentation? Not our customers.) and
it gets a U4093 ABEND. Does the customer look it up? No, he picks
up the phone, calls the salesman and says "your product blows up
when we try to run it." The salesman tells support. By then the
customer has deleted the SYSOUT without noting the exact ABEND, so
we have to persuade the disgruntled prospect to run the product
AGAIN -- he inevitably reports "no better -- it's STILL blowing
up" so we can get the ABEND code and diagnose the problem. In
fact, get all of the symptoms because at that point we don't know
that the ABEND number will be sufficient to diagnose the problem.
A nice, readable message, either from LE or from us, would be a
lot better all around. End of rant.
I agree that a message to the effect of "RUNNING A POSIX(ON)
APPLICATION REQUIRES AN OMVS SEGMENT" would be nice. I guess that
today's businesses simply don't want to understand anything outside
of their specific market. That is why our company executives have
said "We are in the health business, not the IT business". Which is
what is driving them to using ?aaS (SaaS, IaaS, PaaS, etc) in
preference to having on-site hardware/software beyond the desktop.
In the old days, this was lumped under "time sharing" and
"outsourcing". I am guessing, and that's all it is, that eventually
this company will have only application programmers and _maybe_ a
group to do telephony and desktop support. They might even try to
use "as needed" consultants for that. (like Geek'R'Us or something).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
