Thanks to everyone. I indicated in my original post that I had turned on SYSSYM 
for Class A, but I was using obsolete system symbols. Duh. It was simple after 
all. 

In my successful tests, however, it's not clear what class I was running in 
because of WLM. I enabled only CLASS A for SYSSYM. 

ICH70001I TSOSKIP   LAST ACCESS AT 17:13:07 ON THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2016
$HASP373 TIMETEST STARTED - WLM INIT  - SRVCLASS BATCHS   - SYS X0   
SCEUJI02I JOB  TIMETEST STARTED    17.13.08 21 JUL 16                
IEF403I TIMETEST - STARTED - TIME=17.13.07                           
SCEACT01I STEP TIMETEST TIMETEST   CPU 00:00:00.00 CC=0000           

In fact, there is an installation (local) message which indicates that the job 
did not run in CLASS A:  'CLASS SET TO C'. So how did it work? 


.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: (External):Re: System symbols in batch JCL

On 2016-07-21 15:20, Cieri, Anthony wrote:
> 
>       Try   $D JOBCLASS(*),SYSSYM 
> 
Thanks.  That shows me that all job classes at my site have DISALLOW.

But that works only because I have operator privilege.  Let me ask the question 
on behalf of a hypothetical programmer who hasn't such privilege.  I suppose 
that programmer can simply call the system administrator and hope not to get 
the BOFH.

And, further, I ask myself, Why must the facility be controlled?
And I answer myself with a couple possible reasons:

o Some system symbols might have sensitive values (passwords?
  the CIO's personal phone number?) which must be concealed.

o Some dusty decks may contain "//SYSUT2 DD DISP=(,PASS),DSN=&YYMMDD"
  and for compatibility may continue to run in classes with
  SYSSYM=DISALLOW.

I have long felt that reference in JCL to an undefined apparent symbol should 
always have been treated as a syntax error.  That compatibility argument 
reinforces my sentiment.

-- gil


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to