On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> NAME/TOKEN would be a lot more flexible and would not require IBM's > involvement but I have to think the code path for the anchor is a heck of a > lot shorter, at least not counting any validation of version, length, etc. > > L 15,16 Load CVT from PSA > L 15,X'8C'(,15) Load ECVT from CVT > L 15,X'CC'(,15) Customer Anchor Table from ECVT > ICM 15,B'1111',nnn(15) Ptr f/Cust Anch > JZ NotThere Not running > > Charles > So, for a vendor with a product, the above is a very good solution. They are likely already in "cahoots" with IBM anyway. And for somebody, such as maybe me, who is doing something useful "for fun" (maybe even to distribute via CBT), then NAME/TOKEN would be simpler and likely acceptable. -- Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
