I love transactional processing. I still remember the SHARE session where it
was fully described and thinking that this will make life so much easier in the
future. But I may fully retire before we can safely add it to our products
without dual paths for another technique. In this case PLO w
Peter, would you care to share your opinion of CSST?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:24 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: PLO
does anyone k
PLO is an expensive instruction. It can do a little or a lot. There are about
10 pages in the POP to describe it.
However, until transactional processing is supported in all environments,
ISV's, who never know what environment they are running under, need to keep
using the PLO instruction. OK
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> does anyone know of good write-ups/presentations of PLO and its
> capabilities and uses for an assembler programmer who knows how to use CS
> and CDS.
>
>
> My hope is that, going forward once you have a machine that supports it
> and, fo
does anyone know of good write-ups/presentations of PLO and its
capabilities and uses for an assembler programmer who knows how to use CS
and CDS.
My hope is that, going forward once you have a machine that supports it
and, for those who care about z/OS under z/VM, once/if it is supported for
On 10 August 2017 at 22:33, Farley, Peter x23353 <
peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote:
> OT: I would disagree that ICSF is the "overall better choice". IMHO, if
> you do not need unique Crypto Express co-processor functions or completely
> and totally secure keys then ICSF is just wasted overhead
