On 06/01/2015 07:23 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In <[email protected]>, on 05/31/2015 > at 02:51 PM, Joel Ewing <[email protected]> said: > >> The above CLIST code should presumably work as you expect for >> intercepting SEND CLIST "errors" in an Interactive TSO/E, ISPF >> environment where TSO is invoked via a TSO logon PROC as IKJEFT01 and >> not as IKJEFT1A or IKJEFT1B. > > AFAIK all of IKJEFT01, IKJEFT1A and IKJEFT1B have the same task > structure.. > > That may well be, but according to IBM and TSO documentation the behavior of IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B is by design slightly different, specifically for TSO commands that give a non-zero return code that are running "directly" under the TMP; and their definition of "directly" in this context includes TSO commands executed within a CLIST that is directly invoked under the TMP.
It doesn't have to be a difference in TCB structure that makes this behavior of IKJEFT01 vs. IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B different, but if you avoid executing the commands directly under the TMP --e.g., by executing them from within a REXX EXEC -- you can circumvent that behavioral difference. I think one adds a TCB by invoking a REXX EXEC, but probably more significantly it's no longer the TMP that sees the TSO Command return code for commands within the EXEC. The interpretation of whether a non-zero return code is or is not a fatal error is solely at the discretion of the calling program, and IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B appear to be designed to regard any non-zero return code they see as fatal. -- Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
