Most users don't see abends anymore because for the most part the system works. None of my end-users even know about IBM's manuals. When an error occurs and it come to my application programmers or help desk support, they will either know the answer because it is a common occurrence and fix it. If it is not a known problem, they will come to me. I may know the answer, or not.
But I AM the frequently the first person to look it up in the manual. And again, see myself just a funny bit of illogic. Yes, I know how to proceed from there, but the non sequitur bit of explaination is not really helpful. As for LE, I know it does a lot and is much improved from the early days, but hiding an S0C7 as a U4xxx error is not helpful. > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Peter Relson > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Abend s0077 > > Really? I'm puzzled. > > You don't like that the explanation is "what does it mean" and that the action > is "what to do"? > > The intent (and I do not claim that that intent is realized in enough > cases) is surely > - whoever sees the abend information (this will usually be a user, might be an > operator) reads the explanation > - they read the action and take the action (which might be to contact > someone else) > - repeat until you've reached the right party. > > It must be relatively infrequent that the person who gets the abend (and thus > is the first to see the abend) is the system programmer. It might well be that > the user who did get the abend doesn't do what they're supposed to do (as > evidenced by the 0C7 example), but they did see it first. > > I actually think in the S0077 case that the system programmer responses for > 003C and 003D belong instead within programmer response. If a programmer > did something wrong that they need to fix (whether that is an authorized or > unauthorized programmer), then that belongs within programmer response. > > As to the point about ISV's and abend codes: ISV's do not write what is > thought > of as "the system". They are not in general supposed to issue system abend > codes (although some codes are reserved for use by owners of non-system > SVCs). It seems that a good part of the hang-up is thinking that "user" in > this > case necessarily means, for example, some unauthorized TSO user running a > program. It doesn't. It more closely means not-the-IBM-provided-system. > Could it have been defined differently 50 years ago? Sure. I'd guess that LE > came in similarly as "not the system". > It is rare that unauthorized code (as LE originally was) would use system > completion codes. > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
