(fwd) Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On 10 Apr 2006 10:33:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote: much snipped I believe in the context of the original writer that the JES exit(s) were either complex or change was needed to accommodate the change in JES2 levels. Some one spoke about the management issue in this and I concur. But that doesn't get the issue resolved. I would suggest a consultant be hired not only to change the exit but to properly document the exit so if/when it happens again it should be easier to change. This will not stop the problem if there is a rewrite in JES2 that will require a exit rewrite but hopefully if its documented well a consultant will only be briefly needed for the re-write. he best thing might be to review what the exits are doing and see which if any are still needed. A review of available freeware such as that at www.cbt.org also might be in order. In these days of HIPPA and SOX and for Canadians, PIPEDA, it behooves an organization to either know what its JES exits do and how they do it or get rid of them. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/10/2006 2:20:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My Contributed Program Library document for HOUSTON AUTOMATIC SPOOLING PRIORITY SYSTEM 360D 05.1.007 I clearly remember that it was 360D 05.1.014 and not 007. I think. Bill Fairchild -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/10/2006 at 01:04 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program Priority, not program. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/10/2006 at 09:22 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Local Houston branch office group put out HASP type-III Weren't both ASP and HASP type II? My HASP II V3.1 documentation mentions that it is service class A, but it doesn't say whether it is type I, II or III. ASP was two-processor loosly-coupled system Two or more. although there was a flavor called LASP That may have been separate at one time, but it became part of the standard distribution. I can almost see the cover of my old HASP documentation ... but I can't remember the HASP type III program product number. Well, HASP II V3 was 360SD-05.1.014, but I believe that HASP II V4 had a different number. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/11/2006 at 11:01 AM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I clearly remember that it was 360D 05.1.014 and not 007. HASP II V3.1 was definitely 360D 05.1.014, but it may be that an older version was 007. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Why start complaining now? I didn't just start, now. I started when IBM stopped making things incompatible. Their biggest claim to fame was allowing older stuff to run. We barely have the staff and resources to keep up! Making z/OS harder to use is just another nail in its coffin. - -teD O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS! Let's PLAY! BALL! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Edward, JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program From FOLDOC (Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing): A program developed by IBM for NASA in the 1960s to SPOOL output on OS/MFT and OS/MVT to improve job processing performance. Houston, that'll be Texas then... But I guess you knew that already :-) Chris Mason - Original Message - From: Edward E. Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit Rob Scott wrote: I have always wondered why the JES2 developers always seem to move things around so much - offsets for major control block pointers seem to alter with every release. Is this done because they have delivered the source and it is more difficult to provide that extra layer of insulation between API and main processing or it is a deliberate policy decision to not go that extra mile for compatability? They're cowboys. :-) -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Chris Mason wrote: Houston, that'll be Texas then... In the software development business, the area of the country (or the world) from which a developer originates has nothing to do with them being branded a cowboy. It's all about attitude... -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/10/2006 6:05:20 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program From FOLDOC (Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing): A program developed by IBM for NASA in the 1960s to SPOOL output on OS/MFT and OS/MVT to improve job processing performance. Houston, that'll be Texas then... The story I heard was they liked ASP, but it was too piggy so a furious rewrite was undertaken and it became Half ASP. Most of the design objectives were met. When they went to present, it was deemed unsophisticated and changed to Houston ASP. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Ed, Wikipedia has more detail for anyone puzzling over what ASP might be. Chris Mason - Original Message - From: Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, 10 April, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit In a message dated 4/10/2006 6:05:20 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JES2 derived from HASP = Houston Automatic Spooling Program From FOLDOC (Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing): A program developed by IBM for NASA in the 1960s to SPOOL output on OS/MFT and OS/MVT to improve job processing performance. Houston, that'll be Texas then... The story I heard was they liked ASP, but it was too piggy so a furious rewrite was undertaken and it became Half ASP. Most of the design objectives were met. When they went to present, it was deemed unsophisticated and changed to Houston ASP. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/10/2006 9:23:34 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wikipedia has more detail for anyone puzzling over what ASP might be. My roommates, roommate was a Co-op student for NASA during late 60's and his favorite story was one of Gemini/Apollo astronauts took one of the clerks up for a nooner in one of simulator modules. This one had full global telemetry that was activated by entrance. So not only was it recorded, they sent him a bill for $180,000! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The story I heard was they liked ASP, but it was too piggy so a furious rewrite was undertaken and it became Half ASP. Most of the design objectives were met. When they went to present, it was deemed unsophisticated and changed to Houston ASP. Local Houston branch office group put out HASP type-III for some time before their was an official support formed in gburg and many of the people moved there ... and the name change to JES2 ASP was two-processor loosly-coupled system ... although there was a flavor called LASP (single processor) ... local-ASP somewhat to compete with HASP. both HASP and ASP come out of the field since the original spooling built into the base product had significant issues. My wife served a stint in the gburg group ... and was one of the technology catchers for ASP ... when it was also moved to the gburg group and renamed JES3. She also did a detailed technology and market analysis of JES2 and JES3 for a proposal for a merged product (maintaining the major important customer requirements from each in the merged product). However, there was some amount of discord for that to ever succeed. She did get quite a bit of experience regarding loosely-coupled operation and was eventually con'ed into serving a sting in POK in charge of loosely-couple architecture. She developed peer-coupled shared data architecture ... that also saw quite a bit of resistance. Except for work by the IMS hot-standby effort, it didn't see much uptake until parallel sysplex http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#shareddata lots of past postings mentioning HASP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hasp I can almost see the cover of my old HASP documentation ... but I can't remember the HASP type III program product number. However, search engines are your friend; an old JES2 posting from 1992 giving some of the original history and the type-III program product number: http://listserv.biu.ac.il/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9204L=jes2-lT=0P=476 following take from above: It was originally written in Houston in 1967 in support of the Appolo manned spacecraft program. Subsequently it was distributed as a Type III program, picked up a small number of users but through the years the number of users have increased fairly substantially. Further more there is a continuing demand today for HASP. The growth that we have accomplished has not been without problems. In 1968 IBM decided that in release 15/16 since we had readers and writers we no longer had a requirement for HASP. IBM came down very hard on the users and said we were'nt going to have a HASP. The users resisted and HASP exists today. Any typos in the above are mine. My Contributed Program Library document for HOUSTON AUTOMATIC SPOOLING PRIORITY SYSTEM 360D 05.1.007 is dated August 15, 1967. The authors listed are: Tom H. Simpson, Robert P. Crabtree, Wayne F. Borgers, Clinton H. Long, and Watson M. Correr. ... snip ... One of the internal problems with the JES2 NJE network was it traditional networking paradigm and severe limitations. Quite a bit of the original code still carried the TUCC label out in cols. 68-71 of the source. It had intermixed networking related fields in with all the job control header fields. It had also scavange the HASP 256 psuedo device table for network node identifiers; as a result a typical installation might have 60-80 psuedo devices leaving only 180-200 entries for network node definitions. By the time JES2 NJE was announced, the internal network was already well over 256 nodes. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet The lack of strongly defined layers and intermixing networking and job information severely compromised a lot of the internal network. Minor changes to header format from release to release would result in network file incompatibilities. Some machines somewhere in the world, upgrading to a newer release before all the other machines in the world simultaneously upgrading to the same release. There is the well-known legend of the JES2 systems in San Jose being upgraded which resulted in MVS systems in Hursley crashing trying to process network files originating from the San Jose system. the original internal network technology had been developed at the science center (same place that gave you virtual machines, gml, and a lot of interactive computing) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech and had well defined network layering as well as effectively a form of gateway technology in each of its nodes. I've frequently asserted that heavily contributed to the internal network being larger than the arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until possibly mid-85. Because of the many limitations in NJE ... JES2 nodes tended to be restricted to end-nodes in the internal networks. all the intermediary nodes were the responsible of the networking technology from the science center. When talking
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Since there are new people joining the list/group every day[1], it's probably a good idea every so often to cover some of the antique terminology that can creep into these posts. snip - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler ... Local Houston branch office group put out HASP type-III for some time before their was an official support formed in gburg and many of the people moved there ... and the name change to JES2 /snip Here are the Types - as I remember - as I remember being told by my manager in a slightly irritated tone when I asked what Type meant over lunch in a Chinese back shortly after I started with this stuff in 1967: Type I (one) - IBM development-supplied operating system programming Type II (two) - IBM development-supplied application programming Type III (three) - IBM systems engineer-supplied application (or, sometimes, as in the case of HASP, operating system) programming Type IV (four) - Customer-supplied application programming I, II and III at no extra charge and IV out of kindness for the community of IBM users. Those were the days! Also, for those not familiar with IBM geographical abbreviations, gburg = Gaithersburg.(near Washington DC, in Maryland) [1] I was responsible for encouraging one participant over the weekend so I feel responsible. g Chris Mason -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Edward E. Jaffe wrote: Ed Gould wrote: There used to be freebie IBM 1/2 day classes that gave you the vital information. They were generally free, IIRC. The full day class was (IIRC) a nominal fee $90 or $100 IIRC. People should start asking for the classes. It is much easier, IMO to ask for $100 than $1500 (or more) for SHARE and travel. The budget watchers are less likely to bitch. When IBM charged $100 for a full-day technical course, Tainted Love was on the radio, cell phones were as big as a submarine sandwich, and Ronald Reagan was President of the United States! How long ago did you retire?? I don't know about cellphones as I haven't owned one until recently. IIRC they were frowned at in IBM classes (that I attended). I believe I was at such a class in the late 1990's (don't remember the exact year) and yes it was $100. I remember having to try and get the boss to pay for it. The bean counters were a pita then. I also do remember a freebie half day class from around that time frame. It was a what's new in JES2, IIRC. There were other freebies, IIRC a whats new in MVS and a freebie in DFSMS. There was definitely a cut off at over a day for pricing. There was also a freebie offering for broadcasts but at the moment any specifics escape me. There was also a series of video tapes that were available as well. I myself didn't care for them as there were almost always questions that needed to be asked to clarify points although they did do a fairly good job. The exit evaluation/migration service being discussed here is not training. It is consulting services offered by IBM Global Services. Like anything else, if you don't have the expertise in-house to maintain/upgrade your systems, you can hire a consultant to do the job. To acquire in-house expertise, you need to train your people. SHARE can provide the more generalized elements of that training. I know that it is. The classes I talked about were to be considered bridges never training. I grit my teeth at paying IBM for such services. At times it comes across as a conflict of interest, IMO. I would much rather spend the $'s to a consultant (the type that frequents here) rather than IBM. I have been on the consultant side and I saw some sleaziness going on so while I am not an expert, I saw enough to get out of the that side as soon as I could. I *AM NOT* saying all consultants are sleazy just some. IBM consultants that I have seen some are reasonable although they did treat (at times) the staff with disdain. I believe in the context of the original writer that the JES exit(s) were either complex or change was needed to accommodate the change in JES2 levels. Some one spoke about the management issue in this and I concur. But that doesn't get the issue resolved. I would suggest a consultant be hired not only to change the exit but to properly document the exit so if/when it happens again it should be easier to change. This will not stop the problem if there is a rewrite in JES2 that will require a exit rewrite but hopefully if its documented well a consultant will only be briefly needed for the re-write. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03/31/2006 at 11:10 AM, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but never got into any depth. The people that developed them here are long gone. It's against my interests to say so, but your best bet is to convince your management to spring for training on 1.7 and subsequent releases. I and others would be willing to do the work for a suitable fee, but you'll learn more if you do and document[1] the work yourself. Oh, did I mention documentation? Last but not least, do the documentation that the people who came before you didn't bother with. [1] If management doesn't believe in documentation then you've got a worse problem than what you described. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Maintained Exits (was Over my head in a JES exit)
In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:58:54 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A sort-of related peculiarity is that, in z/OS V1.7, manuals that were previously not available in the IBM library web pages - currently down as it happens - suddenly appeared. This included the CS SNA Customization manual where the exits and their samples are described. To IBM's credit their DOC has improved. The links don't always work but the framework is in place. _http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/_ (http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/) Still isn't the problem with 'pay for' exits is that you have to test and maintain. The disparity between expertise and expectations continues to widen. Drop pservic or query bits in a room full of PFCSKs and they'll shun you to the netherworld. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Maintained Exits (was Over my head in a JES exit)
In a message dated 4/2/2006 3:36:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The improvements aren't that much (IMO) for 1.8 or did I miss something big? Probably a little premature to say until we get the rollouts of the new iron and new software painted on the same canvas. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:37:03PM -0600, Ed Gould wrote: IBM is trying to say go to SHARE or else, IMO. This myopic (there is another term I could use) view is troubling IMO. Ed, you're as irrational about SHARE as Phil Payne is about Hercules, and it's getting to be as tiresome. Would you please give it a rest? -- Jay Maynard, K5ZChttp://www.conmicro.cx http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 3/31/2006 5:28:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their JES2 expertise to disappear. Their management also decided/allowed years earlier for JES2 exits to be written and be made part of production systems in the first place. Exits for almost any software product by nature will be dependent on that product's internals (sort exits and SMF exits quickly come to mind as exceptions). Internals change a lot more frequently than externals. I wonder if their management also required those JES2 exits to be thoroughly documented by their developers just in case and what management required those exit developers to do during their last week of employment. Why does this remind me of management's deciding to allow a one-byte field to store the year number in the 1960s and then being surprised when Y2K was only a few months away? Bill Fairchild -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/1/2006 7:41:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: change a lot more frequently than externals. I wonder if their management also required those JES2 exits to be thoroughly documented by their developers just in case and what management required those exit developers to do during their last week of employment. Do the Mellon Mods work on 1.7? How important is it to run JES 1.7 in your shop? Can we still run back level JES while we get somebody up to speed on 1.7? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
and what management required those exit developers to do during their last week of employment. I was down-sized! They got no cooperation on anything to do with documentation, or anything else, once I became a lame duck. They wanted me to train my 'replacement'. What were they going to do? Fire me? - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In a message dated 4/1/2006 1:33:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was down-sized! They got no cooperation on anything to do with documentation, or anything else, once I became a lame duck. They wanted me to train my 'replacement'. What were they going to do? Fire me? Ah, yes. For a moment there I thought we were living in a perfect world. Management, like voters, usually get what they deserve. I was down-sized once and told I could leave as soon as I cleaned out my desk. I made the terrible mistake of spending about another 30 minutes eliminating the last few statements flagged in a module I was assembling it, saving it, and writing a little documentation. Shame on me. But then I was down-sized another time and escorted out of the building immediately, not even being allowed to turn my desktop computer off. Now that was a proper down-sizing! Bill Fairchild -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
I made the terrible mistake of spending about another 30 minutes eliminating the last few statements flagged in a module I was assembling it, saving it, and writing a little documentation. Shame on me. Sarcasm duly noted. When I've left on my own terms, I've always cleaned up after myself. But, since they no longer have need of my services, how can they trust my code data? I did not sabatoge anything. I just did not cooperate. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't. Hello? They are changing the way things are done. Then charging you to 'fix' it? I still think that's wrong. I don't see this as charging to fix something. This is a case of where a customer created code that they can apparently no longer support. There was no requirement to code an exit in the first place. When the expertise is lost, it is NOT wrong for IBM to charge for such expertise. As for changing the way things are done? Well ... That's the name of the game isn't it. When a new version or new hardware comes out, you certainly can't complain about not being able to exploit it because your organization lacks the expertise. The expertise can be obtained, however it is presumptious to assume that someone should be able to migrate to new software or hardware, yet somehow the vendor is responsible for making it all painless or free. Anyway .. My two cents Adam -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
it is presumptious to assume that someone should be able to migrate to new software or hardware, yet somehow the vendor is responsible for making it all painless or free. IBM has bragged for years about upward compatability! So, it should be painless and free! Or, stop bragging about it! - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 07:08:27 -0500, Bob Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IBM is trying to say go to SHARE or else, IMO. This myopic (there is another term I could use) view is troubling IMO. I don't think SHARE is stupid enough to think they are monolithic enough so it can't be them. I really think its a little bit of both IBM and SHARE. Its like a ten foot tall gorilla saying do it my way or your way and I will squash you like a ant if you do it the other way Rubbish! IBM goes where the customers are. If the customers go to SHARE, IBM will go to SHARE to talk to them. Those who don't go to SHARE or to the zExpo must rely on the manuals. To a certain degree I agree with Bob. IBM still has meetings with fairly large groups of customers (large, medium and small) in medium and larger cities. Milwaukee is what I'd call a medium city and the IBM office there has meetings every few months in order to pass on current information. Given that, and especially given IBM's considerable web sites I would have to say that they are generally doing better than they ever did. I would, of course, like to see IBM do even more. But Ed's out of line (and out of touch) on this subject. -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
IBM has bragged for years about upward compatability! So, it should be painless and free! Or, stop bragging about it! Since when does upward compatibility translate into painless and free? That would suggest that an MVT customer should be able to migrate directly to z/OS 1.7. It's a preposterous suggestion, since the pain is supposed to be absorbed by the expertise of the systems programmer. If the organization lacks the expertise, then shame on them (especially, as has been pointed out before, the pain is caused by the customer's own modifications). Adam -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 17:41 -0800, Gerhard Adam wrote: If the organization lacks the expertise, then shame on them (especially, as has been pointed out before, the pain is caused by the customer's own modifications). On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise, and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention the mutts ... ;-) Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:41:07 EST (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :In a message dated 3/31/2006 5:28:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, :[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their :JES2 expertise to disappear. :Their management also decided/allowed years earlier for JES2 exits to be :written and be made part of production systems in the first place. Exits for :almost any software product by nature will be dependent on that product's :internals (sort exits and SMF exits quickly come to mind as exceptions). :Internals change a lot more frequently than externals. I wonder if their management :also required those JES2 exits to be thoroughly documented by their :developers just in case and what management required those exit developers to do :during their last week of employment. I wonder as to the reaction should CA change their exit API and charge their customers the same fees to assess their exits. Somehow I would think that many of those that justify IBM taking this action would strongly object if an ISV acted the same way. :Why does this remind me of management's deciding to allow a one-byte field :to store the year number in the 1960s and then being surprised when Y2K was :only a few months away? They were much more surprised that the code was still in use 30 years later. Are YOU planning for Y10K? -- Binyamin Dissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
I was surprised when I realized at Share that I had more work to do on our few exits. But after attending the several good sessions by the JES people, I realized that the increased functionality was and is worth the minor pain. Most of the changes I need to worry about are the result of moving the INTRDR from the JES address space to the user address space, thereby relieving several limitations and I can probably accomplish a function that I couldn't do in the existing exit 6. -Original Message- I wonder as to the reaction should CA change their exit API and charge their customers the same fees to assess their exits. Somehow I would think that many of those that justify IBM taking this action would strongly object if an ISV acted the same way. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise, and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention the mutts ... ;-) I agree wholeheartedly. However, my comments were intended to address the issue that somehow the vendor was supposed to provide all these services so that the customer wouldn't be inconvenienced for having made customized changes. Regarding another post where the vendor was suggested to be CA instead of IBM ... I don't see any difference. When a customer customizes a product and/or writes program code to exploit an API, then the onus is on them to maintain the expertise and take on the responsibility of maintaining such code into the future. Adam -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Maintained Exits (was Over my head in a JES exit)
This is a tangent but I'm curious. Are there any other product components out there where the exit function has the same characteristics as two VTAM exits I got to use a lot - if only in a teaching environment? These are the Configuration Services, ISTEXCCS, exit and the Dynamic Definition of Dependent LUs, ISTEXCSD, exit. CS SNA, formerly VTAM, development supply sample exits. Both of these samples are quite usable as they are. The former is a bit crude but the latter has a simple solid implementation that would be hard to improve upon and even has a PU statement operand, LUSEED, to support it. Both the exits are strongly supported functionally since development goes to the trouble of providing and maintaining model statements for both. I just checked to be sure and, indeed, the sample exit code is supported since I found an APAR against ISTEXCCS. I didn't find an APAR for ISTEXCSD but it's so simple that it would be impossible to make a mistake (wouldn't it?). The fix for ISTEXCCS was because the developer, perhaps unused to having actually to use raw Assembler for the sample exit, performed a data manipulation was an injudicious instruction (OW38865). Another APAR against ISTEXCCS appeared to show the sample exit being enhanced in order to support new function.(OW56878) Thus the characteristics of the exit is that the function is supplied with a maintained sample. A sort-of related peculiarity is that, in z/OS V1.7, manuals that were previously not available in the IBM library web pages - currently down as it happens - suddenly appeared. This included the CS SNA Customization manual where the exits and their samples are described. Chris Mason - Original Message - From: Gerhard Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Sunday, 02 April, 2006 6:37 AM Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit On the other hand, this allows independents to provide said expertise, and keep food on the table. We all like to remain fed, not to mention the mutts ... ;-) I agree wholeheartedly. However, my comments were intended to address the issue that somehow the vendor was supposed to provide all these services so that the customer wouldn't be inconvenienced for having made customized changes. Regarding another post where the vendor was suggested to be CA instead of IBM ... I don't see any difference. When a customer customizes a product and/or writes program code to exploit an API, then the onus is on them to maintain the expertise and take on the responsibility of maintaining such code into the future. Adam -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Over my head in a JES exit
I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but never got into any depth. The people that developed them here are long gone. I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble. It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK, this exit refers to RDWSAVE1 which appears to be one of the things removed. Before I dig deeper, does anyone have any hints on what changed? Thanks. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
This may help. http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/FLASH10418 Don Imbriale -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rugen, Len Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Over my head in a JES exit I've rolled the JES exits from release to release in the past but never got into any depth. The people that developed them here are long gone. I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble. It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK, this exit refers to RDWSAVE1 which appears to be one of the things removed. Before I dig deeper, does anyone have any hints on what changed? *** Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account activity contained in this communication. *** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:10:23 -0600, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm moving from z/OS 1.4 to 1.7 and the code for EXIT3 won't assemble. It looks like a lot of things were removed from $RDRWORK, this exit refers to RDWSAVE1 which appears to be one of the things removed. Before I dig deeper, does anyone have any hints on what changed? I'm afraid you're going to have to dig deeper to successfully convert to 1.7. Even if you can get your exit(s) to assemble, there is a good chance it won't work correctly (if at all). There are many changes introduced in 1.7 and each reader exit will require a careful review. In some cases, you'll have to code a second exit to retain the same functionality you had prior to 1.7. Start with the Exit Migration Guide which you can find here: http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/installation/zos17_jes2_migra tion.html As to your specific problem, fields that used to reside in the reader work area ($RDRWORK) have been moved to the new Job Receiver Work Area ($JRW). This topic is covered in the Exit Migration Guide. Good Luck! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
I wasn't aware that there was exit migration needed until someone else replied. At first look, I think we can do it, but our accounting codes have acceptable formats going back 20-25 years, all changes were upward compatible, so the old JCL still works. The exit goes down one format, gives up, reloads the parms and tries another format. Two generations of JES sysprogs have left and we didn't grow any new ones. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www- 03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html Brian On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:24:33 -0600, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't aware that there was exit migration needed until someone else replied. At first look, I think we can do it, but our accounting codes have acceptable formats going back 20-25 years, all changes were upward compatible, so the old JCL still works. The exit goes down one format, gives up, reloads the parms and tries another format. Two generations of JES sysprogs have left and we didn't grow any new ones. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Brian Peterson wrote: IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html Brian Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah! -Steve Comstock -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Steve, you do not think that IBM would create a situation where they could charge money to fix it? I thought not. Lizette -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Brian Peterson wrote: IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_off ering.html Brian Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah! But at least you know what you can charge :-) -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In my opinion, Steve Comstock is out of line here. In JES2 for z/OS 1.7, IBM has implemented perhaps the most significant enhancements to JES2 in literally years. - NJE over TCP/IP - Large Spool data sets ( 64K tracks) - Long SYSIN support (32K Lrecl) - Table Pair enhancements - SSI for JES2 monitor information - SAPI and extended status enhancements - Checkpoint recovery and so on. IBM has worked with customers at SHARE and other venues to gather input which IBM has used to guide the design and implementation choices they have made in providing these features. These conversations have been going on for literally years prior to the general availablity of z/OS 1.7. In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? Brian On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:28:25 -0700, Steve Comstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Peterson wrote: IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www- 03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html Brian Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah! -Steve Comstock -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? It's bad because IBM has made a major change that you may not understand, but, for a fee, they will help you 'fix' it. This is just another nail in the coffin for the mainframe platform. Microsoft did the same thing when they consolidated all of the packages into Microsoft Office, converted to VBA for macros, and invalidated years of investment in macro coding. They refused to be compatible with old-style macros and offered to help you convert (for a fee). In both cases, I consider this to be a heinous practice. But, nobody remembers (or cares) that Microsoft did it. Changing age-old code and then charging you to help convert is not customer friendly. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Brian Peterson wrote: In my opinion, Steve Comstock is out of line here. It was a joke, man! In JES2 for z/OS 1.7, IBM has implemented perhaps the most significant enhancements to JES2 in literally years. - NJE over TCP/IP - Large Spool data sets ( 64K tracks) - Long SYSIN support (32K Lrecl) - Table Pair enhancements - SSI for JES2 monitor information - SAPI and extended status enhancements - Checkpoint recovery and so on. IBM has worked with customers at SHARE and other venues to gather input which IBM has used to guide the design and implementation choices they have made in providing these features. These conversations have been going on for literally years prior to the general availablity of z/OS 1.7. In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? Brian On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:28:25 -0700, Steve Comstock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Peterson wrote: IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www- 03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html Brian Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah! -Steve Comstock -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Maybe I over-reacted, too. I jumped to the conclusion that IBM was charging for this service. If they're not, I appologise. If they are, my comments still stand. BTW, my comments about MicroSoft still stand. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -Original Message- From: Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 To:IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? It's bad because IBM has made a major change that you may not understand, but, for a fee, they will help you 'fix' it. This is just another nail in the coffin for the mainframe platform. Microsoft did the same thing when they consolidated all of the packages into Microsoft Office, converted to VBA for macros, and invalidated years of investment in macro coding. They refused to be compatible with old-style macros and offered to help you convert (for a fee). In both cases, I consider this to be a heinous practice. But, nobody remembers (or cares) that Microsoft did it. Changing age-old code and then charging you to help convert is not customer friendly. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Now that we've had our Friday afternoon chill out--easy to do in LA where it's cool and drizzly--I want to affirm Brian's observation: we're given a truckload of new function for our trouble. Which is not even much trouble if 1. you have none of the affected exits in use, or 2. you have or can get your hands on enough JES2 expertise to make the conversions on your own Our Exit 4 conversion was accomplished entirely by a sysprog who had never done a lick of JES2 coding *or support* in his long and varied career. He knows assembler language like a native but had to read up on JES2 basics before he could even start work on the exit code. Even with some odd wrinkles and a dearth of crucial documentation, he accomplished the goal during the z/OS 1.7 ESP. In the end, we were able to migrate 1.7--including updated JES2 code--throughout the enterprise by December 2005, a record time frame for us. As far as the low blow of comparing IBM with Microsoft, I'm sure Bill Gates is turning over in his lavish mansion. ;-) . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU 03/30/2006 04:00 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: Over my head in a JES exit Maybe I over-reacted, too. I jumped to the conclusion that IBM was charging for this service. If they're not, I appologise. If they are, my comments still stand. BTW, my comments about MicroSoft still stand. - -teD I?m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -Original Message- From: Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 To:IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Over my head in a JES exit In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? It's bad because IBM has made a major change that you may not understand, but, for a fee, they will help you 'fix' it. This is just another nail in the coffin for the mainframe platform. Microsoft did the same thing when they consolidated all of the packages into Microsoft Office, converted to VBA for macros, and invalidated years of investment in macro coding. They refused to be compatible with old-style macros and offered to help you convert (for a fee). In both cases, I consider this to be a heinous practice. But, nobody remembers (or cares) that Microsoft did it. Changing age-old code and then charging you to help convert is not customer friendly. - -teD -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
As far as the low blow of comparing IBM with Microsoft, I'm sure Bill Gates is turning over in his lavish mansion. ;-) I could show you scars from both vendors! I also know things that I cannot reveal as a former (short-time) IBMer. But, suffice it to say, nobody wants to do any more than they absolutely have to in either organisation. As a matter of fact, our service provider plays the same game. We have asked for things to be changed for security purposes. They give us a bunch of purple prose and circular arguments and pseudo-explanations that end up with nothing being done. Because, they don't want to do it! And, I'm 0 4 3 on the last three. I think it's because I have not been able to refute their arguments in a way my management can understand. I know they're specious, but because isn't a good enough answer. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
In an attempt to help customers where the original JES2 sysprog has moved on to bigger and better things, IBM has decided to provide a service to help customers evaluate their JES2 exits, and determine if the scope of their particular project is small/medium/large/xlarge. WHY IS THIS A BAD THING? It's bad because IBM has made a major change that you may not understand, but, for a fee, they will help you 'fix' it. This is just another nail in the coffin for the mainframe platform. I agree with Brian. IBM worked diligently to inform customers about the changes to JES in 1.7. As Dave Danner mentioned, they published an Exit Migration Guide. They came to SHARE and gave sessions on the changes. They worked with the SHARE JES2 Project for well over a year prior to GA on migration/exit issues. They presented sessions on the changes at the IBM Expo. This another nail in the mainframe coffin for those who won't read the publications and won't attend conferences. IBM does charge for their service, but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't. I am sympathetic to the original poster whose management allowed their JES2 expertise to disappear. It was a joke, man! If it was a joke, it lost its humor in the translation. Bob Shannon -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't. Hello? They are changing the way things are done. Then charging you to 'fix' it? I still think that's wrong. - -teD I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe in! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On 31 Mar 2006 13:29:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main (Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Comstock) wrote: IBM is also offering services to help out customers in similar situations. http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/support/jes2_exits_offering.html Brian Gee, you don't think that ... ? Nah! Did you also notice that the price quoted is for just the assessment as to whether the code needs to be changed? There will be an additional remediation service (customized for each customer) to update the exits if required. I take that as give us $8000 and then we'll tell you how much more you'll actually have to spend to get it fixed. Or have I misread it? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
Ted MacNEIL wrote: Hello? They are changing the way things are done. Hello? I rather expect things to change given the business we're in. I prefer it to boredom. Then charging you to 'fix' it? IBM isn't charging anyone to 'fix' anything. Any customer implementing exit code in any component expressly commits to the cost of maintaining that code--at no point did IBM guarantee an unchanging interface. What IBM *is* doing is recognizing that some customers are unwilling or physically unable to internally satisfy that commitment and providing an alternative. I still think that's wrong. And I don't. Should I be the only competent JES2 exit programmer on staff when I retire, I'd like to think that my company would still have the choice to either maintain or dispense with the function it had decided to so implement. Bob -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
I went to the Anaheim share, but since we are SO short handed, I went to the IMS sessions instead of the JES session. I can't be in two places. I don't know where anyone would pick up the depth of knowledge in JES as the people that developed these exits had. I may well take this opprotunity to be much less accomodating to outdated (local) standards as the prior code. - I agree with Brian. IBM worked diligently to inform customers about the changes to JES in 1.7. As Dave Danner mentioned, they published an Exit Migration Guide. They came to SHARE and gave sessions on the changes. They worked with the SHARE JES2 Project for well over a year prior to GA on migration/exit issues. They presented sessions on the changes at the IBM Expo. This another nail in the mainframe coffin for those who won't read the publications and won't attend conferences. IBM does charge for their service, but do you really expect them to work for free? I don't. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Over my head in a JES exit
On Mar 31, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Rugen, Len wrote: I went to the Anaheim share, but since we are SO short handed, I went to the IMS sessions instead of the JES session. I can't be in two places. I don't know where anyone would pick up the depth of knowledge in JES as the people that developed these exits had. I may well take this opprotunity to be much less accomodating to outdated (local) standards as the prior code. Len, IBM is trying to say go to SHARE or else, IMO. This myopic (there is another term I could use) view is troubling IMO. I don't think SHARE is stupid enough to think they are monolithic enough so it can't be them. I really think its a little bit of both IBM and SHARE. Its like a ten foot tall gorilla saying do it my way or your way and I will squash you like a ant if you do it the other way. There used to be freebie IBM 1/2 day classes that gave you the vital information. They were generally free, IIRC. The full day class was (IIRC) a nominal fee $90 or $100 IIRC. People should start asking for the classes. It is much easier, IMO to ask for $100 than $1500 (or more) for SHARE and travel. The budget watchers are less likely to bitch. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
