On 28 April 2011 13:45, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > As to your point about CICS "stealing" GETMAIN (my term), it would have > to, at least, be able to differentiate GETMAINs done by its application > from those done within the system that just happened to be under the same > task. That in general is difficult at best to get 100% right.
It's a tricky business, and your earlier point about SVC (and PC?) exits is well taken. The <other vendor> I mentioned in my earlier post who was trapping and modifying GETMAINs got control via SVC screening when our RACF exit was driven as a result of their issuing a RACROUTE. They then converted our GETMAIN for CSA into one for local storage, presumably because they thought they were trapping their own GETMAIN (or at least not ours), and when we tried to use that "CSA" for cross memory functions, it obviously didn't work too well. And guess who got the support call... On the other hand, no matter how many exit points IBM or anyone else puts in, and where, there is always some unanticipated need for another one. The system needs to provide for those as well. JES2, among other [sub]systems, does a pretty good job of that. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
