iirc (it was decades ago), WTL drops the exact text into the log. None of the ~80 bytes of timestamp, flags, job ID, etc. is prefixed. So, WTO is better in that you do get all that.
If WTL suits the purpose though, I don't see much harm in using it. However, if you have any log post-processing, you should check to see if it's going to gag on your non-standard messages. sas On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, at 15:14, Charles Mills wrote: > > Possibly because AT LEAST since z/OS 1.10 (and I think long before that) > IBM > > has been saying > > > > Note: IBM recommends you use the WTO macro with the MCSFLAG=HRDCPY > parameter > > instead of WTL, because WTO supplies more data than WTL. > > What does that mean? Surely in both cases the data is what the programmer > elects to send? > > I'd have thought there'd be advantages in not sending log data through > message processing. > > -- > Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
