Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-29 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03/28/2006 at 03:28 PM, Jorge Arueira Campos [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Issuing a wait macro in a CICS transaction, in the main task, is forbidden. Why no have a protection for not down the CICS ??? It would be expensive to enforce the various rules that a transaction

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-29 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03/28/2006 at 09:04 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One interpretation of what Shmuel says is that it is still something a CICS transaction programmer shouldn't even think of doing. Is there another interpretation[1]? But note that the it in question was

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-28 Thread Jorge Arueira Campos
Hi !!! Issuing a wait macro in a CICS transaction, in the main task, is forbidden. Why no have a protection for not down the CICS ??? There are a problem if the user coded a macro WAIT in your program and issue in CICS region and shutdown the entire product. Is necessary open a call in support

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-28 Thread Chris Mason
PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, 28 March, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro. Hi !!! Issuing a wait macro in a CICS transaction, in the main task, is forbidden. Why no have a protection for not down

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-27 Thread Chase, John
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always exceptions. If you can get the wait off of the main TCB (TCA?), it's not as bad, but IBM (and almost every CICS sysprog I

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-27 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03/25/2006 at 06:33 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm glad other, sharper problem vultures have spotted the two - so far - flaws in the original code. But the matter here is whether issuing a WAIT in a CICS transaction at all is a good thing or not. I'd go

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Richard Tsujimoto
Jorge coded: A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded below, down the CICS. 289 WAIT 5,ECBLIST=LISTECBS 290+*MACDATE 10/20/88 292+ LA0,5(0,0)LOAD PARAMETER REG 0 294+ LA1,LISTECBS

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Bob Rutledge
Assuming there's nothing missing from this code sample, there are too few entries in LISTECBS to satisfy the wait count (5). Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned upon? Bob Jorge Arueira Campos wrote: Hi all A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Ed Finnell
In a message dated 3/25/2006 10:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned upon? Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always exceptions.

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Chris Mason
] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Saturday, 25 March, 2006 6:04 PM Subject: Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro. In a message dated 3/25/2006 10:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Ted MacNEIL
Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always exceptions. If you can get the wait off of the main TCB (TCA?), it's not as bad, but IBM (and almost every CICS sysprog I know) still strongly recommends against it. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Tom Schmidt
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:00 -0300, Jorge Arueira Campos wrote: A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded below, down the CICS. 289 WAIT 5,ECBLIST=LISTECBS 290+*MACDATE 10/20/88 292+ LA0,5(0,0)LOAD PARAMETER REG 0

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-25 Thread Tom Schmidt
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:13:29 -0500, Don Poitras wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:58:00 -0300, Jorge Arueira Campos wrote: I don't know what happened in cics region. Anybody have a information of PTF or APAR related with this problem, macro WAIT of

CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-24 Thread Jorge Arueira Campos
Hi all A test of transaction(SUPX) under CICS V2.2.0, in instructions wait coded below, down the CICS. 289 WAIT 5,ECBLIST=LISTECBS 290+*MACDATE 10/20/88 292+ LA0,5(0,0)LOAD PARAMETER REG 0 294+ LA1,LISTECBS

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-24 Thread Lizette Koehler
Jorge, I assume you are CICS TS2.2 what version of operating system? I am not sure but I think you need to start with a S0201 abend with MVS or z/OS. In the MVS messages codes (or z/OS) the error indicaties: 201

Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro.

2006-03-24 Thread Lizette Koehler
transaction exec wait macro. Jorge, I assume you are CICS TS2.2 what version of operating system? I am not sure but I think you need to start with a S0201 abend with MVS or z/OS. In the MVS messages codes (or z/OS) the error indicaties: 201