The JES2 implementation of DJC is not as transparent as it could be - there are some features that will cause a JCL error from what I saw in the SHARE presentation on JES2 support for JES3 JECL - and I guarantee that your most critical jobs use it :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lionel B. Dyck Mainframe Systems Programmer - TRA -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM to stabilize JES3 (was: IBM to finally drop JES3) I think with the job scheduling function in JES2, the fact that JES2 is able to handle the JES3 JCL cards, it is probably not as difficult to move JES3 to JES2 usage. Lizette > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Steve Beaver > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 7:44 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM to stabilize JES3 (was: IBM to finally > drop > JES3) > > There are probably several reasons IBM is shutting own JES3 > > The install base has dwindled such that is costs more to support that > revenue generated. > Also I have not seen in years people use a JES3 console. People have > scheduling systems > Vs. JES3 Scheduling > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:24 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM to stabilize JES3 (was: IBM to finally > drop > JES3) > > Clark - an active project to get off JES3 - that is easier said than done. > There is no cost justification for doing so, there is no ROI, there is > no significant benefit to such a project. All a site will encounter is > significant costs to (a) retrain sysprogs, operators, all JECL users, > (b) convert from using JES3 DJC to the not quite the same JES2 DJC > networks, (c) loss of data set awareness allowing jobs to enter > execution only to wait for data sets held exclusive (disp new/old) or > trying to access data sets exclusive, (d) loss of functionality from > locally developed DSPs, (e) conversion of all JES3 user exits with > probable loss of functionality, (f) updating all automation tools to > use JES2 commands (assuming there are equivalent commands), (g) the > lost opportunity to use the resources spent on the migration for other > projects that help the company be more competitive, more productive, > save money, be more agile, improve operations, support their users/customers, > etc. > > Just my $0.01 > > This e-mail reflects only my opinion and not those of my employer or > those I'm contracting with. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > Lionel B. Dyck > Mainframe Systems Programmer - TRA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Clark Morris > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 8:56 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM to stabilize JES3 (was: IBM to finally > drop > JES3) > > [Default] On 30 Aug 2017 04:43:59 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > rel...@us.ibm.com (Peter Relson) wrote: > > >It is very disturbing to see someone use an inflammatory > >representation such as the initial subject of this thread when that > >is very much *not* what the SOD said. > > The handwriting was on the wall decades ago on JES3. SMS was made > available to JES2 shops on XA but not JES3. JES3 required the > licensing of BDT to get SNA NJE while JES2 had it native. SNA NJE > between JES3 and VSE did not work requiring resolution by what I > recall was the Network Protocol Board (I was the systems and JES3 > programmer at the shop that was first to try it). Over the years the > more expensive job entry sub-system was the last to get some new > functions if it ever got them. I would highly recommend that JES3 shops have > an active project to get off JES3 and save money. > > Clark Morris > > > >Maybe in practice stabilization will result in some JES3 users > >choosing to move (perhaps because they need new function that would > >become available only in JES2), but IBM is not dropping JES3, nor did > >the statement of direction say or imply anything about doing so. > >That's like saying just because we might have stabilized some system > >service that you must stop using it. That too would be a faulty conclusion. > > > >Regardless, input such as what Cheryl W refers to is important. > > > >(John Eells would probably have stated the above in a cleaner way; > >apologies to him.) > > > >Peter Relson > >z/OS Core Technology Design > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
