On 10 Apr 2006 10:33:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote:
much snipped
I believe in the context of the original writer that the JES exit(s)
were either complex or change was needed to accommodate the change in
JES2 levels. Some one spoke about the
In a message dated 4/10/2006 2:20:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My Contributed Program Library
document for HOUSTON AUTOMATIC SPOOLING PRIORITY SYSTEM 360D 05.1.007
I clearly remember that it was 360D 05.1.014 and not 007.
I think.
Bill Fairchild
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/10/2006
at 01:04 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program
Priority, not program.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel
We don't care. We don't
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/10/2006
at 09:22 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Local Houston branch office group put out HASP type-III
Weren't both ASP and HASP type II? My HASP II V3.1 documentation
mentions that it is service class A, but it doesn't say whether it is
type I, II
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/11/2006
at 11:01 AM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I clearly remember that it was 360D 05.1.014 and not 007.
HASP II V3.1 was definitely 360D 05.1.014, but it may be that an older
version was 007.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,
Why start complaining now?
I didn't just start, now.
I started when IBM stopped making things incompatible.
Their biggest claim to fame was allowing older stuff to run.
We barely have the staff and resources to keep up!
Making z/OS harder to use is just another nail in its coffin.
-
-teD
O-KAY!
knew that already :-)
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Edward E. Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Rob Scott wrote:
I have always wondered why
Chris Mason wrote:
Houston, that'll be Texas then...
In the software development business, the area of the country (or the
world) from which a developer originates has nothing to do with them
being branded a cowboy. It's all about attitude...
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software
In a message dated 4/10/2006 6:05:20 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program
From FOLDOC (Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing): A program developed by
IBM for NASA in the 1960s to SPOOL output on OS/MFT and OS/MVT
Ed,
Wikipedia has more detail for anyone puzzling over what ASP might be.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/10/2006 9:23:34 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wikipedia has more detail for anyone puzzling over what ASP might be.
My roommates, roommate was a Co-op student for NASA during late 60's and his
favorite story was one of Gemini/Apollo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The story I heard was they liked ASP, but it was too piggy so a
furious rewrite was undertaken and it became Half ASP. Most of the
design objectives were met. When they went to present, it was deemed
unsophisticated and changed to Houston ASP.
Local Houston branch
Since there are new people joining the list/group every day[1], it's
probably a good idea every so often to cover some of the antique terminology
that can creep into these posts.
snip
- Original Message -
From: Anne Lynn Wheeler
...
Local Houston branch office group put out HASP
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
There used to be freebie IBM 1/2 day classes that gave you the
vital information. They were generally free, IIRC. The full day
class was (IIRC) a nominal fee $90 or $100 IIRC. People should
start asking for the classes.
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 03/31/2006
at 11:10 AM, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but
never got into any depth. The people that developed them here are
long gone.
It's against my interests to say so, but your best bet is to
In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:58:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A sort-of related peculiarity is that, in z/OS V1.7, manuals that were
previously not available in the IBM library web pages - currently down as it
happens - suddenly appeared. This included the CS
In a message dated 4/2/2006 3:36:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The improvements aren't that much (IMO) for 1.8 or did I miss
something big?
Probably a little premature to say until we get the rollouts of the new iron
and new software painted on the same
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:37:03PM -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
IBM is trying to say go to SHARE or else, IMO. This myopic (there is
another term I could use) view is troubling IMO.
Ed, you're as irrational about SHARE as Phil Payne is about Hercules, and
it's getting to be as tiresome. Would you
In a message dated 3/31/2006 5:28:50 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their
JES2 expertise to disappear.
Their management also decided/allowed years earlier for JES2 exits to be
written and be made part
In a message dated 4/1/2006 7:41:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
change a lot more frequently than externals. I wonder if their management
also required those JES2 exits to be thoroughly documented by their
developers just in case and what management required
and what management required those exit developers to do
during their last week of employment.
I was down-sized!
They got no cooperation on anything to do with documentation, or anything else,
once I became a lame duck.
They wanted me to train my 'replacement'.
What were they going to do?
In a message dated 4/1/2006 1:33:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was down-sized!
They got no cooperation on anything to do with documentation, or anything
else, once I became a lame duck.
They wanted me to train my 'replacement'.
What were they going to do?
I made the terrible mistake of spending about another 30 minutes
eliminating the last few statements flagged in a module I was assembling it,
saving
it, and writing a little documentation. Shame on me.
Sarcasm duly noted.
When I've left on my own terms, I've always cleaned up after myself.
but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't.
Hello?
They are changing the way things are done.
Then charging you to 'fix' it?
I still think that's wrong.
I don't see this as charging to fix something. This is a case of
where a customer created code that they can apparently no
it is presumptious to assume that someone should be
able to migrate to new software or hardware, yet somehow the vendor is
responsible for making it all painless or free.
IBM has bragged for years about upward compatability!
So, it should be painless and free!
Or, stop bragging about it!
-
-teD
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 07:08:27 -0500, Bob Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM is trying to say go to SHARE or else, IMO. This myopic (there is
another term I could use) view is troubling IMO. I don't think SHARE
is stupid enough to think they are monolithic enough so it can't be
them. I really
IBM has bragged for years about upward compatability!
So, it should be painless and free!
Or, stop bragging about it!
Since when does upward compatibility translate into painless and
free? That would suggest that an MVT customer should be able to
migrate directly to z/OS 1.7. It's a
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 17:41 -0800, Gerhard Adam wrote:
If the organization lacks the expertise, then shame on them
(especially, as has been pointed out before, the pain is caused by the
customer's own modifications).
On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise,
and
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:41:07 EST (IBM Mainframe Discussion List)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:In a message dated 3/31/2006 5:28:50 P.M. Central Standard Time,
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their
:JES2 expertise to disappear.
:Their
I was surprised when I realized at Share that I had more work to do
on our few exits.
But after attending the several good sessions by the JES people, I
realized that the increased functionality was and is worth the minor
pain. Most of the changes I need to worry about are the result of moving
On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise,
and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention
the mutts ... ;-)
I agree wholeheartedly. However, my comments were intended to address
the issue that somehow the vendor was supposed to provide all
@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, 02 April, 2006 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise,
and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention
the mutts ... ;-)
I agree wholeheartedly. However, my comments
I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but never
got into any depth. The people that developed them here are long gone.
I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble.
It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK, this exit
refers to
head in a JES exit
I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but never
got into any depth. The people that developed them here are long gone.
I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble.
It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:10:23 -0600, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble.
It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK, this exit
refers to RDWSAVE1 which appears to be one of the things removed.
Before I dig
I wasn't aware that there was exit migration needed until someone else
replied. At first look, I think we can do it, but our accounting codes
have acceptable formats going back 20-25 years, all changes were upward
compatible, so the old JCL still works. The exit goes down one format,
gives up,
IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations.
http://www-
03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html
Brian
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:24:33 -0600, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wasn't aware that there was exit migration needed until
Brian Peterson wrote:
IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations.
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html
Brian
Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah!
-Steve Comstock
Steve, you do not think that IBM would create a situation where they could
charge money to fix it? I thought not.
Lizette
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Brian Peterson wrote:
IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar
situations.
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_off
ering.html
Brian
In my opinion, Steve Comstock is out of line here.
In JES2 for z/OS 1.7, IBM has implemented perhaps the most significant
enhancements to JES2 in literally years.
- NJE over TCP/IP
- Large Spool data sets ( 64K tracks)
- Long SYSIN support (32K Lrecl)
- Table Pair enhancements
- SSI for JES2
In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved
on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to
help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of
their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge.
WHY IS THIS A BAD THING?
Brian Peterson wrote:
In my opinion, Steve Comstock is out of line here.
It was a joke, man!
In JES2 for z/OS 1.7, IBM has implemented perhaps the most significant
enhancements to JES2 in literally years.
- NJE over TCP/IP
- Large Spool data sets ( 64K tracks)
- Long SYSIN support (32K
in!
-Original Message-
From: Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00
To:IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved
on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
03/30/2006 04:00 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Maybe I over-reacted, too.
I jumped to the conclusion
As far as the low blow of comparing IBM with Microsoft, I'm sure Bill
Gates is turning over in his lavish mansion. ;-)
I could show you scars from both vendors!
I also know things that I cannot reveal as a former (short-time) IBMer.
But, suffice it to say, nobody wants to do any more than they
In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has
moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a
service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if
the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge.
WHY IS THIS A BAD
but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't.
Hello?
They are changing the way things are done.
Then charging you to 'fix' it?
I still think that's wrong.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in!
On 31 Mar 2006 13:29:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Comstock) wrote:
IBM is also offering services to help out customers in
similar situations.
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html
Brian
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Hello?
They are changing the way things are done.
Hello? I rather expect things to change given the business we're in. I prefer
it to boredom.
Then charging you to 'fix' it?
IBM isn't charging anyone to 'fix' anything. Any customer implementing exit
code in any
I went to the Anaheim share, but since we are SO short handed, I went to the
IMS sessions instead of the JES session. I can't be in two places.
I don't know where anyone would pick up the depth of knowledge in JES as the
people that developed these exits had.
I may well take this
On Mar 31, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Rugen, Len wrote:
I went to the Anaheim share, but since we are SO short handed, I
went to the IMS sessions instead of the JES session. I can't be in
two places.
I don't know where anyone would pick up the depth of knowledge in
JES as the people that
52 matches
Mail list logo
