As I said earlier, we still use UADS in production. Only a handful of TSOE segments in order to support features that cannot be achieved otherwise, such as CONSOLE. I remember a post (I think from Shmuel) some time ago about flipping a bit in the ACEE just before invoking CONSOLE in a Rexx. I prefer TSOE segment for the handful of folks who need such functionality.
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@att.net > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 01:53 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > But the only way to "fix"an unusable RACF database is to have a fairly recent > backup copy of the RACF data base that can be restored. I would contend that > is easier, and possibly safer, to do this from a fully functional "one-drive" > tech > support emergency z/OS system accessing production drives than to do it from > a UADS-defined TSO user on a crippled production system without RACF or > with a known-damaged database > -- and there are so many other unanticipated problems such an emergency > system can address that it doesn't make sense to be without one. > > If the only problem that can be solved by having a UADS-defined TSO user can > be better addressed by a "must have" alternative, why persist with any UADS- > defined TSO users once the alternative is available? > Joel C. Ewing > > On 02/14/2016 01:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > > This problem occurs so seldom that I never thought of automating a > response. As of R12 or so, we now have AUTORxx, which can reply to WTORs > very early in the IPL. Not sure who here would have to approve such a change. > The chances of mischief being perpetrated are minimal, but it does open a > very small window for a clever miscreant. > > > > . > > . > > . > > J.O.Skip Robinson > > Southern California Edison Company > > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > > 323-715-0595 Mobile > > jo.skip.robin...@att.net > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu] > >> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe > >> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > >> > >> On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > >>> This opinion is based on (thankfully) limited experience. If you are > >>> forced to IPL without a usable RACF data base, you are totally > >>> scr*wed. During IPL, operator will be prompted to allow even READ > >>> access to *every* data set opened by *every* task except for a tiny > >>> handful like JES that bypass integrity. By the time you get to the > >>> point of actually logging on to TSO, operator's fingers will be > >>> bleeding profusely. If at any time during this process, you are > >>> god-forbid required to start over, yet more finger tips will have to > sacrificed. > >> We solved this with an MPF exit that would always reply 'Y' to each > >> of those prompts (except for the first few IIRC). > >> > >> -- > >> Edward E Jaffe > >> Phoenix Software International, Inc > >> 831 Parkview Drive North > >> El Segundo, CA 90245 > >> http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR jcew...@acm.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
