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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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.
]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo