On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:30:28 +0000, kekronbekron <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> By parallel run, I mean letting the current, split-up behaviour remain the >>> canonical way/source, >> This is referred to as multi-tasking which has nothing to do with messages. >Yes, I understand multi-tasking. There wasn't any doubt or question there. You've mistaken Unix threading for z/OS multi-tasking. Threading is a small subset of multi-tasking. > I was imagining a way to "write to" both targets, and having a provision to > switch over. You need to get out of the Unix mindset of solving a single problem. In z/OS, we look at the big picture. IBM could easily fix message continuations in SYSLOG but instead solved several SYSLOG problems by implementing OPERLOG. SYSLOG is woefully short on environmental information about the message. There are multiple systems within the Sysplex. The list of problems goes on. IBM did the hard part by creating OPERLOG. >If it's just a presentation issue, it's safe to then change the IE something >to wide col count? I don't understand what is implied by "IE". I assume you are asking if IBM can simply increase the record length of SYSLOG. Increasing SYSLOG record length would break existing code at most z/OS sites. Programs that read SYSLOG need to be modified. SYSLOG is backed up to a GDG. Why introduce problems when OPERLOG is the better choice? >It won't affect what automation tools see? Automation will never use OPERLOG, SYSLOG nor any other user facing interface for system message events. I assume that SYSLOG is all that most people need because 25 years of OPERLOG with very few programs accessing it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
