I came to OS/360 from DOS/360 (after a very brief start with OS/360 and CP-67) and I was really impressed that in OS, unlike DOS, you could write a module and not care whether it was called as a statically linked subroutine, a dynamically linked module, or executed as a jobstep program.
"Special ways of doing things" are a bane. Compare the considerations in copying via a serial stream a z/OS load module as opposed to a UNIX or Windows executable. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OS subroutine in assembler, used in both batch & CICS , making r e-entrant On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:28:50 GMT, esst...@juno.com wrote: >I worked on something very similiar to this. >Let me first say I hate those who tried to use a called moduled from both CICS >and Batch. Now having said that, Have You considered making the Assembler >Subroutine part of a Task Related User Exit in CICS. You would have two >different entry points and still keep the Assembler Routine intact. > Many decades ago, I had an associate, fresh out of graduate school at Yale, where he had enjoyed the privilege of using an IBM computer with 2,000K of main memory! Among its merits that he extolled was an operating system with programming conventions that provided a fully uniform interface to any program or subroutine. (I later learned of the CALL macro and associated conventions, of which I assume he was speaking.) What went wrong? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
