Saying that I running Sam's UCBLOOK or SHOWZOS in an unauthorized state, can be traversing one of these chains, encounter an element disappearing, and initiate an I/O or any other action which results in more than an abend of my SHOWMVS/UCBLOOK? Anything that actually could lead to something as drastic as an IPL? Surely such a failure of system integrity would be APARable. Even if the interface is not GUPI. Integrity is not enforced by documentation :)
Although a screwdriver is generally preferred to drive a screw, there are times when expedience or need indicates a hammer will do the job adequately for the specific situation. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State University > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Bob Shannon > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 7:31 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: "New" way to do UCB lookups > > >A minimal requirement for their integrity is that two dispatchables not > access >one of them concurrently. > > Absolutely. > > > we are dealing here with well understood risks that are entirely avoidable > and that there is thus no excuse for incurring them > > At a higher level no one has mentioned the risk of using an undocumented > interface to do something for which documented services are available. > > Bob Shannon > Rocket Software > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
