On 06/04/2015 11:07 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
> In <556da66b.9040...@acm.org>, on 06/02/2015
> at 07:49 AM, Joel Ewing <jcew...@acm.org> said:
>
>> That may well be, but according to IBM and TSO documentation the
>> behavior of IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B is by design slightly different,
>
> How is that relevant to the claims about TCB structure?
Why this insistent fixation on TCB structure, as if that was something I
was arguing? I'm not! At this point I'm disinterested.
This sub-thread, in response to a question about any migration issues
with User Log Files, had to do with a possible migration issue with SEND
when migrating from SYS1.BRODCAST to User Log Files, and specifically a
failure related to.invoking SEND from a CLIST from Batch TSO using
IKJEFT1A in an existing job stream which only occurred using User Log
Files. Someone else with similar batch job streams might also have
similar minor migration issues
I mis-remembered that our issue might have been something to do with TCB
structure; BUT ... when I located the original IBM problem discussion, I
quoted IBM's explanation of why it behaved the way it did, and that
quote makes no claims about differences in TCB structure, only that this
is the way it works. Internal IKJTEFxx TCB structures turned out to be
totally irrelevant to the cause of our migration issue, and thus
irrelevant to the original question that prompted this sub-thread.
IBM agreed with me that it was unreasonable to assume CLIST users could
interpret "directly" based on the undocumented internal implementation
of CLIST execution, and they clarified the manuals.
When dealing with historical production job streams which are using
IKJEFT1[A,B) for Batch TSO and which have been functioning correctly for
years, one can equally argue that if you are not sure why they chose
that entry point you have no business arbitrarily changing that usage
without first doing a complete analysis -- and resources to do that
analysis may require there first be a perceived problem. Specific
usages of IKJEFT1A may or may not be appropriate, but you still have to
deal with what is actually in use at your installation.
J. C. Ewing
>
>> and their definition of "directly" in this context includes TSO
>> commands executed within a CLIST that is directly invoked under
>> the TMP.
>
> Unless the implementation of EXEC has changed radically, any reaonable
> definition of directly would have to include commands from a CLIST. If
> the TMP does a GETLINE or PUTGET, builds a CPPL and attaches the task,
> how much more direct can it get? It's the same code path as the
> command from the terminal.
>
>> but if you avoid executing the commands directly under the TMP
>
> Water is wet.
>
>> and IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B appear to be designed to regard any non-zero
>> return code they see as fatal.
>
> That's specialized behavior and by no means the normal batch TSO. If
> you don't know why youi're using IKJEFT1[AB] then you probably
> shouldn't be using them.
>
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR jcew...@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
