Think it is time to change subject lines for this topic drift?
On 06/02/2015 08:49 AM, Joel Ewing wrote:
On 06/01/2015 07:23 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <556b662e.60...@acm.org>, on 05/31/2015
at 02:51 PM, Joel Ewing <jcew...@acm.org> said:
The above CLIST code should presumably work as you expect for
intercepting SEND CLIST "errors" in an Interactive TSO/E, ISPF
environment where TSO is invoked via a TSO logon PROC as IKJEFT01 and
not as IKJEFT1A or IKJEFT1B.
AFAIK all of IKJEFT01, IKJEFT1A and IKJEFT1B have the same task
structure..
That may well be, but according to IBM and TSO documentation the
behavior of IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B is by design slightly different,
specifically for TSO commands that give a non-zero return code that are
running "directly" under the TMP; and their definition of "directly" in
this context includes TSO commands executed within a CLIST that is
directly invoked under the TMP.
It doesn't have to be a difference in TCB structure that makes this
behavior of IKJEFT01 vs. IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B different, but if you avoid
executing the commands directly under the TMP --e.g., by executing them
from within a REXX EXEC -- you can circumvent that behavioral
difference. I think one adds a TCB by invoking a REXX EXEC, but
probably more significantly it's no longer the TMP that sees the TSO
Command return code for commands within the EXEC. The interpretation of
whether a non-zero return code is or is not a fatal error is solely at
the discretion of the calling program, and IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B appear to
be designed to regard any non-zero return code they see as fatal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
