I will be out of the office starting 05/02/2008 and will not return until
05/19/2008.
I am working in Brazil with limited access to the internet. I will check
e-mail daily.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Hi,
In one of our programs say XYZ, we are accessing USER catalog by
dynamically allocating the Catalog using SVC 99 (in shared access mode) to
get some dataset related information from the catalog.
Before this dynamic allocation we are actually turning-on all the wait bits
exactly, and it has included Unix for quite awhile now, O/E first showed up
with MVS V4
- Original Message -
From: Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Shop zSeries Ordering
Are you running authorized? The FM states:
Requesting a Data Set That Is In Use:
Rather than wait for another user to release a data set, volume,
or device to obtain use of it, dynamic allocation fails a request
by an unauthorized program. If an authorized program specifically
requests a
On Fri, 2 May 2008 19:26:34 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your circumstance, I'd be inclined to use MSG(WTP) rather than MSG(2).
But I've already been wrong once today. YMMV.
Yes, that would be a better option also. Thanks. No excuse except that
I copied the code from
On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:28:43 -0400, J R wrote:
Requesting a Data Set That Is In Use:
Rather than wait for another user to release a data set, volume,
or device to obtain use of it, dynamic allocation fails a request
by an unauthorized program. ...
I've long wondered why. Is there some
Probably to ensure that not just anybody can cause a deadly embrace:
S99WTVOL / S99WTDSN / S99WTUNT / S99OFFLN / S99MOUNT :
Use care when you set these flags; setting any one of them
might cause a deadlock situation. For example, consider the
situation where JOBA owns a resource that JOBB
Yes the program is authorised.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:23:37 -0400, J R wrote:
Probably to ensure that not just anybody can cause a deadly embrace:
Why is a deadly embrace caused by an authorized program deemed
less harmful than one caused by an unauthorized program?
S99WTVOL / S99WTDSN / S99WTUNT / S99OFFLN / S99MOUNT :
Hi list,
I will post this in the cics list also
but maybe someone here will know...
we are cics ts 2.3
Terminal starting a session to TOR and then submit transaction A that have
REMOTESYSTEM of AOR1 in the definition.
Transaction A in AOR1 issue the start command with terminal to Transaction
Thomas,
You're not alone :)
I think your ISFMSG2 stem variable is empty...
Try adding a VERBOSE parameter on your ISFACT call. That should put some
diagnostic messages in ISFMSG2 which may help you debug.
Gil.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Am I the only
Why is a deadly embrace caused by an authorized program deemed
less harmful than one caused by an unauthorized program?
I suspect you know that's not what I meant.
I think the assumption is that, if you are writing authorized code,
you know what you are doing and will take precautions to
That doesn't answer my question.
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:34:25 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SVC99
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Yes the program is authorised.
_
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure
On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:17:44 -0400, J R wrote:
That doesn't answer my question.
I know this one!
I.e. the program may have been bound with AC=1, but into a
non-authorized library; or it may have been invoked by CALL,
LINK, ATTACH, or XCTL from a non-authorized parent; or there
may have been a
On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:14:02 -0400, J R wrote:
Why is a deadly embrace caused by an authorized program deemed
less harmful than one caused by an unauthorized program?
I suspect you know that's not what I meant.
I think the assumption is that, if you are writing authorized code,
you know
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Is it proper, then, to make the assumption that if two authorized
programs fall into a deadlock with each other, and fail to detect
or recover, a developer didn't know what he was doing, and at least
one of the programs should be APARable?
APAR = Authorized Program
May I have a go at it, too? Someone just helped me figure this out.
I haven't learned how to set a trap for something like this yet to get a
dump, but I imagine it isn't hard.
But from an SVC dump you find the abending TCB. Then from there look at
the JSCB. In the BOPTS check if the JSCBAUTH
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Barry A
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shop zSeries Ordering Issues
Yes it's great if you are allowed to connect your system to the
On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:58:25 -0500, Saravanan J wrote:
In one of our programs say XYZ, we are accessing USER catalog by
dynamically allocating the Catalog using SVC 99 (in shared access mode) to
get some dataset related information from the catalog.
Before this dynamic allocation we are actually
At 05:58 -0500 on 05/03/2008, Saravanan J wrote about SVC99:
As per our understanding, the dynamic allocation in XYZ program should wait
for the shared access of Catalog as the catalog is locked for exclusive use by
Catalog compression jobs. And since the DSN is unavailable to our program
XYZ,
Bruno's book has been OCRed and can be downloaded from
http://www.prycroft6.com.au/misc/
(currently last item on the page).
At under 4 meg it is a fair bit smaller than Bruno's original scan,
but could not have been created without it. Thanks, Bruno!
Cheers,
Greg
21 matches
Mail list logo
