Debra –
Of course. Thank you for your efforts.
Charles
From: Debra A Quick [mailto:dqu...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:27 AM
To: Charles Mills
Cc: r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl; IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: RE: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
Hi Charles,
Thank you for your
In listserv%201009020401466401.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 09/02/2010
at 04:01 AM, Etienne Thijsse e.thij...@chello.nl said:
I have read that I can have a batch job write to the screen by coding
TERM=TS on the DD statement, like this:
//TERM DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
It isn't true. Where did you
In listserv%201009020828301466.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 09/02/2010
at 08:28 AM, Etienne Thijsse e.thij...@chello.nl said:
Then I guess my JCL book is wrong; it says Coding TERM=TS on a
//SYSOUT DD statement sends the output data set back to the terminal
if it was submitted from a terminal. in
In listserv%201009021015154585.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 09/02/2010
at 10:15 AM, Etienne Thijsse e.thij...@chello.nl said:
That sounds suspiciously similar to the quoted text from the JCL
book... Maybe the key is that the background job must still run under
TSO? Is that possible?
No. The key is
In 4c7fff76.4000...@bremultibank.com.pl, on 09/02/2010
at 09:48 PM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl said:
More functionality is usually better.
FSVO functionality. Adding options without thinking them through
usually makes things worse.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and
In
1559058428-1283449765-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-17762363...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 09/02/2010
at 05:49 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:
Unfortunately, IBM manuals are (generally) written by people who have
English as a first language and understand nuances
On 09/02/2010 08:13 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 4c7fff76.4000...@bremultibank.com.pl, on 09/02/2010
at 09:48 PM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl said:
More functionality is usually better.
FSVO functionality. Adding options without thinking them through
usually makes
Hi,
I have read that I can have a batch job write to the screen by coding
TERM=TS on the DD statement, like this:
//TERM DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
But I am not seeing anything being written on the screen; the output still ends
up as an entry in SDSF... Should I do something else to have
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 04:01 -0500, Etienne Thijsse wrote:
Hi,
I have read that I can have a batch job write to the screen by coding
TERM=TS on the DD statement, like this:
//TERM DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
But I am not seeing anything being written on the screen; the output still
joa...@swbell.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 04:01 -0500, Etienne Thijsse wrote:
Hi,
I have read that I can have a batch job write to the screen by coding
TERM=TS on the DD statement, like this:
//TERM DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
But I am not seeing anything being written on the screen
Etienne Thijsse pisze:
Thanks, John,
Then I guess my JCL book is wrong; it says Coding TERM=TS on a //SYSOUT
DD statement sends the output data set back to the terminal if it was
submitted from a terminal. in the section about the SUBMIT TSO statement.
I don't want to analyze the wording,
Yes, I believe that John is right, as I said.
Maybe some word analyzing would be in order, because the way I read the
statement from the JCL book, it says something totally different, and
seemingly totally wrong...
Thanks,
Etienne
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:03 +0200, R.S.
in either the foreground
or the background, provide a DD statement as follows:
//DD1 DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=A
In this example the output device is defined as a terminal under TSO/E
processing, and as the SYSOUT device during batch processing. For a
complete
@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
Yes, I believe that John is right, as I said.
Maybe some word analyzing would be in order, because the way I read the
statement from the JCL book, it says something totally different, and
seemingly totally wrong...
Thanks,
Etienne
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:03 +0200, R.S. wrote:
Etienne Thijsse pisze:
Thanks, John,
Then I guess my JCL book is wrong; it says Coding TERM=TS on a //SYSOUT
DD statement sends the output data set back to the terminal if it was
submitted from a terminal. in the section about the SUBMIT TSO
Would be nice to have(i.e TERM=TS from a batch job)
On 9/2/2010 4:40 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:03 +0200, R.S. wrote:
Etienne Thijsse pisze:
Thanks, John,
Then I guess my JCL book is wrong; it says Coding TERM=TS on a //SYSOUT
DD statement sends the output data
Charles,
This book is not an IBM manual, its an old book called System 390 JCL 4th
edition from 1998.
Thanks,
Etienne
I am told that manual comments should go to mhvr...@us.ibm.com so that's
where I am forwarding this post.
Charles
or the background, provide a DD statement as follows:
//DD1 DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=A
In this example the output device is defined as a terminal under TSO/E
processing, and as the SYSOUT device during batch processing. For a
complete description of the TERM=TS parameter, see z/OS MVS JCL
:
//DD1 DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=A
In this example the output device is defined as a terminal under TSO/E
processing, and as the SYSOUT device during batch processing. For a
complete description of the TERM=TS parameter, see z/OS MVS JCL
Reference.
HTH!
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
In a foreground job submitted from a TSO/E userid, this DD
statement defines a data set coming from or going to the TSO/E userid.
Example 2
//DD1 DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
In a background or batch job, the system ignores TERM=TS and
recognizes a sysout data set. (An allocation
Examples of the TERM Parameter
Example 1
//DD1 DD TERM=TS
In a foreground job submitted from a TSO/E userid, this DD
statement defines a data set coming from or going to the TSO/E userid.
Example 2
//DD1 DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
In a background or batch job, the system ignores
Maybe the key is that the background job must still run under TSO? Is that
possible?
While you can run the TMP in the background, by definition, batch is
non-interactive, and runs under the JES (2 or 3) sub-system.
TERM=TS is for interactive work, under the TSO sub-system.
So, in short, it is
the way I read the
statement from the JCL book, it says something totally different, and seemingly
totally wrong...
There's submitting and there's submitting.
Submit a job to get it to execute under JES2/3.
Submit text/commands, under TSO, and the output comes back to the terminal.
TERM=TS
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:51 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
Etienne Thijsse pisze:
Thanks, John,
Then I guess my JCL book
List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Etienne Thijsse
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
Thanks, John,
Then I guess my JCL book is wrong; it says Coding TERM=TS on
a //SYSOUT
DD statement sends the output data
Would be nice to have(i.e TERM=TS from a batch job)
Why?
Wouldn't that violate so many integrity rules?
There is always the SEnd command.
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation!
Kimota!
--
For IBM-MAIN
W dniu 2010-09-02 19:54, Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Would be nice to have(i.e TERM=TS from a batch job)
Why?
Isn't it obvious?
More functionality is usually better. If you don't like it, then just
don't use it.
Wouldn't that violate so many integrity rules?
Well, it is non-existent
Isn't it obvious?
If it were obvious, would I ask why?
More functionality is usually better.
A dunsel is still a dunsel.
If you don't like it, then just
don't use it.
I never said I didn't like it!
I simply asked why.
I can see no use for the function, at the moment.
I wouldn't mind knowing
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:48:06 +0200, R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2010-09-02 19:54, Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Would be nice to have(i.e TERM=TS from a batch job)
Why?
Isn't it obvious?
More functionality is usually better. If you don't like it, then just
don't use it.
Isn't each of us uncomfortable with
W dniu 2010-09-02 22:01, Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Isn't it obvious?
If it were obvious, would I ask why?
Unfortunately yes. My opinion on that: You ask me, I answer.
More functionality is usually better.
A dunsel is still a dunsel.
Thank you for expressing your minds using words out of
A dunsel is still a dunsel.
Thank you for expressing your minds using words out of dictionary
I'm allowed to use words that are common usage in my native tongue, aren't I?
Of course, only Star Trek fans would get the reference.
There would be many applications for such feature. Some batch
JES2 or JES3.
TERM=TS is effective in a time sharing address space, i.e. one with a TSB which
represents a terminal.
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:59:32 +
From: eamacn...@yahoo.ca
Subject: Re: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Maybe the key is that the background job must
.
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:48:06 +0200
From: r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl
Subject: Re: DD TERM=TS,SYSOUT=*
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
W dniu 2010-09-02 19:54, Ted MacNEIL pisze:
Would be nice to have(i.e TERM=TS from a batch job)
Why?
Isn't it obvious?
More functionality is usually
You are confusing subsystem and address space type. Under normal
circumstances, TSUs also run under JES2 or JES3.
Yes, of course.
But, there is a definite sub-system called TSO, just as there is one called STC
(Started Task Control).
They all require JES, but they are separate sub-systems.
34 matches
Mail list logo
