In 9607598388776077.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/25/2014
at 11:46 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
A single TCP/IP stack can communicate with itself.
You're still evading the question, although I'm not sure what you mean
by communicate in this context[1], or why
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:39:55 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 9607598388776077.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/25/2014
at 11:46 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
A single TCP/IP stack can communicate with itself.
You're still evading the question, although
Paul Gilmartin said:
Someone else suggested that with a /*ROUTE command it could
be done. But:
o Regardless how simple, this is modifying the JCL, probably
making it ineligible to run on other systems until it's changed
back
o Does this work by routing the job to an (arbitrarily chosen)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Steve Conway
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
Paul Gilmartin said:
Someone else suggested
(was: NJE Clarifications)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Steve Conway
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Skip Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
A job can routed for execution to another NJE node by JES command. If there
happens
Skip Robinson is of course quite right. A job can be sent to any NJE
node for execution by operator command, and operator commands can of
course be generated.
There are, however, simpler solutions. JCL that differs
parametrically from one instance to another of its use is easy, very
easy, to
In 4657009561737029.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/26/2014
at 07:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
OK. An FTP server can't communicate with itself. I never said it
could. I don't know why you're asking.
Because that's the TCP/IP analog to NJE talking to itself.
In 0de6a9840123e547b061ac5b6765c026dda...@exmb-05.ad.wsu.edu, on
03/26/2014
at 06:03 PM, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu said:
I think that some of this is a real difference between the way the
two protocols work.
Not that I can see.
I think that some of this is a real difference between the way
In 5228466182930420.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/24/2014
at 07:11 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
I can use FTP (a TCP/IP protocol) to submit jobs to localhost. I
do not need multiple TCP/IP stacks to do this;
What does that have to do with the price of eggs
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:19:06 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Again, that's a similarity rather than a difference, unless you are
claiming that, e.g., an FTP server can communicate with itself over
TCP/IP.
A single TCP/IP stack can communicate with itself. Yes.
over TCP/IP? It appears
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 20:12:49 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I''m not asking a question; I'm pointing out a false analogy. TCP/IP,
in contrast, is blessedly tolerant. makes no sense.
...
I'm asking in what sense TCP/IP is more tolerant than SNA. It's
certainly not in the ability to run
: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 20:12:49 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I''m not asking a question; I'm pointing out a false analogy. TCP/IP,
in contrast, is blessedly tolerant. makes no sense.
...
I'm
On 24 March 2014 08:11, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 20:12:49 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I''m not asking a question; I'm pointing out a false analogy. TCP/IP,
in contrast, is blessedly tolerant. makes no sense.
...
I'm asking in what sense TCP/IP is
In 7668784065325551.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/21/2014
at 03:52 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
o NJE can't communicate with the local host.
FSVO host. NJE can communicate between two distinct nodes on the same
host, but neither node can communicate with
In
cahtvvrwyciqkkofab1q7-t2xb7tpti1yyosuc5awvt9xfnt...@mail.gmail.com,
on 03/21/2014
at 09:33 PM, Jake anderson justmainfra...@gmail.com said:
Can this be possible in a MAS environment
What are you trying to do? In MAS each system already has access to
the SPOOL, so how would NJE be relevant?
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:03:10 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
TCP/IP, in contrast, is blessedly tolerant.
FSVO tolerant; try using the same port number, not just the same IP
address.
The question makes no sense; a server listens on a port; a client connects
to that port. Give me more
In 4922808670825025.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
03/23/2014
at 10:58 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
The question makes no sense;
I''m not asking a question; I'm pointing out a false analogy. TCP/IP,
in contrast, is blessedly tolerant. makes no sense.
a server
To pick another example, IBM i (formerly i5/OS, formerly OS/400) also
supports NJE. There it's known as the VM/MVS Bridge.
Timothy Sipples
VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail:
t...@harminc.net (Tony Harminc) writes:
For many years (decades, actually) there have been other products (IBM
and non-IBM) that talk the NJE protocols. Most notably, IBM's RSCS on
VM uses an overlapping subset of the same protocol, and is
interoperable. There have been NJE implementations for
Hi,
For an NJE to work we must have to two different nodes. Is there a way for
NJE to work within a single Node(Monoplex) just to communicate to another
product(As a socket-Running in same Node) ?
Is there a case study for the NJE to work on a Monoplex environment ? I
tried looking at the share
W dniu 2014-03-21 16:18, Jake anderson pisze:
Hi,
For an NJE to work we must have to two different nodes. Is there a way for
NJE to work within a single Node(Monoplex) just to communicate to another
product(As a socket-Running in same Node) ?
Is there a case study for the NJE to work on a
Hi,
I was just trying to understand this feature for our POC.
NJE is for JES to JES commnunication.
Can this be possible in a MAS environment(Where two LPARS have same Node)
and communicate to a product running in either of 1 LPAR.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM, R.S.
On 21 March 2014 11:18, Jake anderson justmainfra...@gmail.com wrote:
For an NJE to work we must have to two different nodes. Is there a way for
NJE to work within a single Node(Monoplex) just to communicate to another
product(As a socket-Running in same Node) ?
For many years (decades,
,
Date: 03/21/2014 09:03 AM
Subject:Re: NJE Clarifications
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Hi,
I was just trying to understand this feature for our POC.
NJE is for JES to JES commnunication.
Can this be possible in a MAS environment(Where two
W dniu 2014-03-21 17:03, Jake anderson pisze:
Hi,
I was just trying to understand this feature for our POC.
NJE is for JES to JES commnunication.
Can this be possible in a MAS environment(Where two LPARS have same Node)
and communicate to a product running in either of 1 LPAR.
It seems to be
It has been around long before SYSPLEX of any sort.
We called it 'Shared SPOOL'. Now it's Multi-Access SPOOL (MAS).
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: R.S.
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 16:12
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: NJE Clarifications
W
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:21:57 -0700, Skip Robinson wrote:
...
'NJE with oneself' has no meaning. ...
There's a peculiar tendency of designers and testers to ignore, even
shun, that reflexive boundary condition.
o NJE can't communicate with the local host.
o iconv used to reject input
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 1:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:21:57 -0700, Skip Robinson wrote:
...
'NJE with oneself' has no meaning. ...
There's a peculiar tendency of designers and testers
, Dave gib...@wsu.edu
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu,
Date: 03/21/2014 01:58 PM
Subject: Re: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
The SORTs (Sync or DF) will happily allow SORTIN/SORTOUT to be the
same file. And in today's world
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Sri h Kolusu
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Reflexivity (was: NJE Clarifications)
The SORTs (Sync or DF) will happily allow SORTIN
justmainfra...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 03/21/2014 09:03 AM
Subject:Re: NJE Clarifications
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Hi,
I was just trying to understand this feature for our POC.
NJE is for JES to JES commnunication
At 12:19 -0400 on 03/21/2014, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: NJE Clarifications:
For many years (decades, actually) there have been other products (IBM
and non-IBM) that talk the NJE protocols. Most notably, IBM's RSCS on
VM uses an overlapping subset of the same protocol, and is
interoperable
33 matches
Mail list logo
