On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 02:19:28 +0000, J O Skip Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>This may sound heretical, but I lean against recovery actions for system >exits. In most cases, the environment in which a system- >defined exit runs is protected already. Messages are issued, dumps are taken, >and some semblance of order is restored. In many cases >the exit is disabled so that repetitive abends are avoided. What actions would >a user recovery environment take better than this? Test >your exit for as long as possible on a sandbox system. Then move it to a >development system for as long as possible. At long last move >it to production. A user written recovery routine would probably take longer >to debug than whatever exit code caused a failure in the >first place. I don't specifically disagree with that, either. I will mention, though, that ICHRTX00 will not be disabled if it's causing issues, and if I remember correctly any recovery is entirely up to the issuer of the RACROUTE macro. I do not believe that SAF establishes any recovery of its own before invoking the ICHRTX00 exit, so whatever messages, dumps, or restoration of order (or lack thereof) may occur depends solely on the RACROUTE invoker. -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
