In the big view, system symbols are over 20 years old. For many years, symbols 
were honored for STC and TSU but not for batch. IBM was reluctant to support 
batch for reasons mentioned by Lizette and others. I participated in more than 
one open discussion at SHARE where different folks had very convincing reasons 
for symbols to be substituted in various incompatible ways. But symbols had to 
be managed in only one way, and there was forceful disagreement.

So IBM left it up to the customer whether to honor symbols in batch. If it 
works for you, turn it on. Otherwise don't. But you should move gradually. Be 
prepared to back out. Since system symbols in batch are a (relatively) new 
thing, you need to verify that in your environment you get the results you 
expect. Caveat emptor.  

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
[email protected]


-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 7:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: (External):Re: Why not SYSSYM=ALLOW?

So this may or may not apply

You have 3 LPARs in a plex.  They all share a JES2 MAS

Job A is submitted on LPAR1 but is converted on LPAR2. The symbols the job 
needs is only on LPAR1 - so the conversion on LPAR2 will either get wrong 
symbols or no symbols.

If your single LPAR, you probably do not need to worry as much.

If you more LPARs in a PLEX and the potential for symbols to be different on 
them, and jobs can convert anywhere, you might have some challenges.


Lizette


> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Pew, Curtis G
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 6:34 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why not SYSSYM=ALLOW?
> 
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc- 
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Unintended substitution of symbols where programmers were too lazy 
> > to double ampersands where proper.
> 
> That makes sense, and shouldn’t be a problem for us.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Pew, Curtis G
> [email protected]
> ITS Systems/Core/Administrative Services


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

Reply via email to