On 2017-09-22, at 15:26, Jim Mulder wrote: > The issue is not foreground vs background. The issue is that > MVS and its predecessors have never provided a service to change > TCBJLB after a task has been attached, so there may be ways in which > programs assume that such a change will not occur. We believe > that it would be dangerous to change this paradigm, so IBM does not, and > will not, provide such a capability. > Short form for CBT and ISV customers: Caveat emptor.
> IBM does provide products which use TASKLIB on ATTACH, such as > ISPF, and TSO commands issued from READY after a TSOLIB command. >> From: Jesse 1 Robinson >> Date: 09/22/2017 05:14 PM >> >> Since I was a wee programmer trainee, I've wondered why such a fuss >> is made about TSO execution when almost anyone who can logon to TSO >> can concoct a random set of JCL cards and SUBMIT them. Including >> STEPLIB to any library the user has SAF access to. Why do we worry >> so much more about 'foreground' than 'background' processes? Could >> it be a fuddy-duddy holdover from the days when our forefathers were >> dragged kicking and screaming from the environment of punch cards >> into wild world of glass and pixels? >> Or, any job can fork() (BPX1FRK) a number of child processes, giving each a different STEPLIB concatenation, ... Restriction: those STEPLIB data sets must be catalogued. ... each can allocate DDNAMEs with BPXWDYN, ... Restriction: this forgoes the benefits of initiator SYSDSN ENQs. ... and LINK or ATTACH whatever program it wants. >> Or maybe there's a good reason I'm missing. >> I believe many programmers want old problems solved without using new technology. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
