UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Allan Staller
> Sent: 28 September, 2018 15:43
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: define a service class in wlm by batch
>
> Short answer ... No.
> Long answer. Yes, if you want to spend a lot more time than it will take
> to do it from w
Subject: define a service class in wlm by batch
Hi all
Could we define a service class in WLM by batch job? Thanks a lot!
Best Regards,
Jason Cai
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
On 9/27/2018 11:12 PM, Jason Cai wrote:
> Could we define a service class in WLM by batch job? Thanks a lot!
Sure: fetch current service definition, update, store it, re-activate
the currently active policy name (now sporting your new srvclass). Have
a look at the WLM Programming Services
Hi all
Could we define a service class in WLM by batch job? Thanks a lot!
Best Regards,
Jason Cai
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message
Hi:
I have said this before. At a IBM class (here in Chicago) The
instructor told us (SERVPAC CLASS) that the goal of IBM was to
eliminate the systems programmer.
Now hows does that make everyone on the list feel?
Ed
On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Disclaimer: I
I feel fine. I was told the same thing 35 years ago.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OSMF audit (was Re: WLM in batch
in batch?)
I feel fine. I was told the same thing 35 years ago.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OSMF audit (was Re: WLM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:25 PM
I was told that System Programming would be reduced to PARMLIB updates. Circa
1981.
And..
In a previous job as a CSR for an ISV, we got a new boss. In
is lacking is the batch mass modify part.
Kees.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: 20 November, 2014 15:00
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM in batch?
(Reposting to the list server.)
A while back
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: 20 November, 2014 15:00
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM in batch?
(Reposting to the list server.)
A while back, when it became obvious that we needed a way to prime a WLM policy
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
IBM wants z/OS to be friendly.
They've turned down a lot of requirements that would have made it friendlier.
And audit improvement requests too. :-(
IBM wants things that will improve their cash flow, possibly at the expense of
long term profit.
Indeed. Think
Disclaimer: I (or we) don't have z/OSMF and z/OS v2.1, maybe next year, when we
are deemed not be naughty SysOps... ;-)
Cheryl Walker wrote:
But the reason to go to z/OSMF is not because people want cheap labor, but
because it's simply better (at least in 2.1).
John McKown is talking about
Currently, the only way I know of handling WLM policy changes is though the
ISPF dialogs, screens, etc., that sit behind IWMARIN0. That's all very
well, but beyond the NOTES function (and/or in-house change control
documentation), there is no real possibility of an audit trail.
Is there any way
: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: John Compton johnc.e...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 20/11/2014 10:49
Subject:WLM in batch?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe
-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: Martin Packer/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 20/11/2014 11:03
Subject:Re: WLM in batch?
Sent
: WLM in batch?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Would XML suit you?
It's what I do in Batch from the ISPF TLIB. I'm not sure whether to write
up what is an undocumented and unsupported technique.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal
/ Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: John Compton johnc.e...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 20/11/2014 11:27
Subject:Re: WLM in batch?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN
Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: John Compton johnc.e...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 20/11/2014 11:42
Subject:Re: WLM in batch?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM
] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: 20 November, 2014 12:50
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM in batch?
This was also an interesting (related) thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/1bnhG_--Zzc
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:41:00 +, Martin Packer wrote:
I'm not a WLM developer. I'm hoping someone who is will answer that point.
If not we'll have to raise a requirement.
If you're raising a requirement, ask them why the hell it was architected like
that in the first place. No doubt the
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Shane Ginnane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:41:00 +, Martin Packer wrote:
I'm not a WLM developer. I'm hoping someone who is will answer that point.
If not we'll have to raise a requirement.
If you're raising a requirement, ask them
(Reposting to the list server.)
A while back, when it became obvious that we needed a way to prime a WLM
policy for new systems, SYS1.SAMPLIB(IWMINSTL) was born. Maybe you'll
find the IWMARIDU program useful in this context, and maybe not...if I
recall correctly it uses an ISPF table. (I
In
cacppn5zv0oxhtyzduualorbk_qupb4iytg8jgkkdhpohbkm...@mail.gmail.com,
on 11/20/2014
at 10:49 AM, John Compton johnc.e...@gmail.com said:
Any suggestions gratefully received...
Write a WLM formatter, assuming that the format is documented.
Submit a requirement to IBM, with business case.
In
caajsdjh3gvsdewm25tn8qiwudxk+dxjbfbu3jxatpchskzn...@mail.gmail.com,
on 11/20/2014
at 07:23 AM, John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com said:
Why? Because somebody thought that using ISPF would make it better.
An *option* to use ISPF *does* make it better. However valuable the
ISPF panels
24 matches
Mail list logo
