Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Steff Gladstone]

Thank you one and all for your excellent advice.

בתאריך יום ב׳, 26 בנוב׳ 2018, 21:36, מאת Seymour J Metz :

> The only documented way that I know of is with WTO; why the FM specifies
> ROUTCDE=14 rather than 11 I don't understand. There's an undocumented ACB
> interface. but I don't recall the setup details.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Jesse 1 Robinson 
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 3:17 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Our SMF exits still use IEFYS to write messages to the job output stream.
> If there were some other 'more modern' method, I'd use it, but I know of
> none. As for doc, I've never found any. I just call the interface--which at
> least seems to be a supported if somewhat clandestine UI--and it continues
> to work through decades of OS upgrades. We absolutely need to write
> messages from SMF exits. If not IEFYS, then how? I'm open to improvements.
>
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
> robin...@sce.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
>  1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still
> using it. The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gnfRXs1KF_kQF-919fF6eZq16WYo4NjFG740q0HSIRf0e9hVyYm15nERpwmkSe9X4fUeZoKpEARI5iYlW8dBl3bhnlO7EiAfnMus7A7SPR9NMKQHFGwWU-G0uq78_vsmn4nB7dkqrtT5l_vwTQIm2L_K3jzxXHxQgmUE11hH5U8bQcV7Veylge_htj1Vdg4_8aDfe6tyRADVG2d8GFRYeen8ZACtgoTzdX0f8GMdgLTd37-jNBBHdaztHyYeEXt0d7e0PUEE3-Pc0QG0eLRKcMTXO2FXtzQCLl6SYrwNTBUese1rAqBXfr9AFTAUvuZ4zaruqj_ypr5tLg21PeWWDuDDKL496PQNaBelfn34ndBmfNJBmT2rIac1YuttyCG8ffJTQZ7l4KE3aMXs5MPezu5VMNb_Qu6v40jGFwHohkFPcjmA15EjM1OIaCXVwAZR/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F360%2Fos%2FR20.1_Mar71%2FGC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdf
>
>  2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the
> storage of the terminating job step to be long gone.
>
>  3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the
> Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> ____
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Steff Gladstone 
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
>
> 1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
> The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
> doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.
>
> 2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
> freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
> if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
> TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
> job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?
>
> 3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
> the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
> fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
> an SVC 99 call myself?
>
> Thank you  in advance,
> Steff Gladstone
>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:
>
> > I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
> > bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> > Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
> >
> > Peter Relson wrote:
> >
> > >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing
> > >exits
> > that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers.
> > And I'd hope that new exits use it.
> >
> > That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
> > unneeded IPL when one of my SMF ex

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Seymour J Metz]

The only documented way that I know of is with WTO; why the FM specifies 
ROUTCDE=14 rather than 11 I don't understand. There's an undocumented ACB 
interface. but I don't recall the setup details.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Jesse 1 Robinson 
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 3:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

Our SMF exits still use IEFYS to write messages to the job output stream. If 
there were some other 'more modern' method, I'd use it, but I know of none. As 
for doc, I've never found any. I just call the interface--which at least seems 
to be a supported if somewhat clandestine UI--and it continues to work through 
decades of OS upgrades. We absolutely need to write messages from SMF exits. If 
not IEFYS, then how? I'm open to improvements.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

 1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still using it. 
The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at 
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gnfRXs1KF_kQF-919fF6eZq16WYo4NjFG740q0HSIRf0e9hVyYm15nERpwmkSe9X4fUeZoKpEARI5iYlW8dBl3bhnlO7EiAfnMus7A7SPR9NMKQHFGwWU-G0uq78_vsmn4nB7dkqrtT5l_vwTQIm2L_K3jzxXHxQgmUE11hH5U8bQcV7Veylge_htj1Vdg4_8aDfe6tyRADVG2d8GFRYeen8ZACtgoTzdX0f8GMdgLTd37-jNBBHdaztHyYeEXt0d7e0PUEE3-Pc0QG0eLRKcMTXO2FXtzQCLl6SYrwNTBUese1rAqBXfr9AFTAUvuZ4zaruqj_ypr5tLg21PeWWDuDDKL496PQNaBelfn34ndBmfNJBmT2rIac1YuttyCG8ffJTQZ7l4KE3aMXs5MPezu5VMNb_Qu6v40jGFwHohkFPcjmA15EjM1OIaCXVwAZR/http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F360%2Fos%2FR20.1_Mar71%2FGC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdf

 2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the storage of 
the terminating job step to be long gone.

 3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the 
Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steff Gladstone 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:

1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google 
doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.

2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being freed 
at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me if SUBPOOL 
alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the 
STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the job-step TCB?  What course is 
recommended?

3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but the 
BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works fine in 
a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code an SVC 99 
call myself?

Thank you  in advance,
Steff Gladstone



On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:

> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing
> >exits
> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers.
> And I'd hope that new exits use it.
>
> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.

--
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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Seymour J Metz]

One supported way is with WTP (although the FM mentions ROUTCDE=14). I've also 
seen code using an ACB interface, but don't recall the setup.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Spiegel 
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 9:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

1. If nobody was using IEFYS, how else would the flower box be printed?

On 2018-11-24 14:48, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>   1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still using 
> it. The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at 
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1qoTP_KhPNfcuQ19Bxp4xnxBGVq4dfCgpmAau_pWJ2EzUGanhQxqDOZcWvYoxqL2Y6-BjvK4RMwvDBCmVfiy0hxOYsicVgtTYiY-5UrREMfHpJBJM3YjSzG-ifKPIXmf7u-M9GAdQVqTUDd3jFQoMUh6bbpp49EFO8rt25ZrPKm3bu2AihMyKfIMJwFz95990-THb_cjkwzzDcnYpUMJv2sEZaBWaBKluXPBeaaXH6OFrz3Ygy8XHfSbaVJjsfCV35patTSG1NU_sNVXIld91bz9Ec9hTxK8xNKGHwLSli90xUvqfHlIqV_L4zZYswWlJ9P3_Ugz65xwu2yyijrpywV-HswbipsZxoIN6to5wok4yabhbX8wLANbOff4U4hlBxm_6QC82uslvSVh-7mEYtqFKzMc-IRaJ33sGf4mIkLWXZUX6j3l5Nk2cDxAwsgYE/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fbitsavers.org%252Fpdf%252Fibm%252F360%252Fos%252FR20.1_Mar71%252FGC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdf%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Cbd270956a79640dbdde708d65245dd84%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636786857360946751%26sdata%3DSDpk9gv%252BqiCPdB7eUNZdPTtc9Q%252BM8qxr548J8fnU5PI%253D%26reserved%3D0
>
>   2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the storage 
> of the terminating job step to be long gone.
>
>   3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the 
> Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1dzd1FsN0nEosm-45LhyTQZu3_q9iYWpXjrlTPOrGThBB5zBf0FP_lnXi0Pdjm19EXoQZQrE-A9mnhpFYC98z2Igy1Lx0bf-1MmZZqs3L6djzbDYsKYTXGegho6mUlVqxaPnVG3wfuIIyhp2XSBvo0q9PSciBGtVMTMmT3fVXKvBzMCgsH_MyWCsGhQq9gICReEiD84ritkLkZ_hkHGd2LIWXpCMWdeblWGf9jJspTemeKjmTetWdggAO4uxsdDj3TAmAhwFB-VWa4XM2YiRVhR8GUsRkjgPgCTuKj3VmVKKK_M593AS45GVTsTTWRJ9_-FRMkXU_bSygZSOHatQYLyNYRtx08P8hDamL-Zb66lWhZZXj8Lu_sKu3ZAFHYEnVADKxK3_paystlFIsvA0dyuCvFd2nK8SqxQhPn-K17JNdapRJD6giWC_iubhzQJKn/https%3A%2F%2Feur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%252F%252Fmason.gmu.edu%252F%7Esmetz3%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Cbd270956a79640dbdde708d65245dd84%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636786857360946751%26sdata%3DGKK3hqgt4uaepi6nw9h80ESrAaOCWmwnBWaw3y3cs%252BA%253D%26reserved%3D0
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> Steff Gladstone 
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
>
> 1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
> The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
> doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.
>
> 2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
> freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
> if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
> TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
> job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?
>
> 3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
> the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
> fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
> an SVC 99 call myself?
>
> Thank you  in advance,
> Steff Gladstone
>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:
>
>> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
>> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>> Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
>> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>>
>> Peter Relson wrote:
>>
>>> When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits
>> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And
>> I'd hope that new exits use it.
>>
>> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
>> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.
>>
>> --

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[David Spiegel]

1. If nobody was using IEFYS, how else would the flower box be printed?

On 2018-11-24 14:48, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>   1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still using 
> it. The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbitsavers.org%2Fpdf%2Fibm%2F360%2Fos%2FR20.1_Mar71%2FGC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdfdata=02%7C01%7C%7Cbd270956a79640dbdde708d65245dd84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636786857360946751sdata=SDpk9gv%2BqiCPdB7eUNZdPTtc9Q%2BM8qxr548J8fnU5PI%3Dreserved=0
>
>   2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the storage 
> of the terminating job step to be long gone.
>
>   3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the 
> Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbd270956a79640dbdde708d65245dd84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636786857360946751sdata=GKK3hqgt4uaepi6nw9h80ESrAaOCWmwnBWaw3y3cs%2BA%3Dreserved=0
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> Steff Gladstone 
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
>
> 1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
> The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
> doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.
>
> 2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
> freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
> if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
> TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
> job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?
>
> 3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
> the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
> fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
> an SVC 99 call myself?
>
> Thank you  in advance,
> Steff Gladstone
>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:
>
>> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
>> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>> Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
>> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>>
>> Peter Relson wrote:
>>
>>> When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits
>> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And
>> I'd hope that new exits use it.
>>
>> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
>> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> --
> 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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

Our SMF exits still use IEFYS to write messages to the job output stream. If 
there were some other 'more modern' method, I'd use it, but I know of none. As 
for doc, I've never found any. I just call the interface--which at least seems 
to be a supported if somewhat clandestine UI--and it continues to work through 
decades of OS upgrades. We absolutely need to write messages from SMF exits. If 
not IEFYS, then how? I'm open to improvements.  

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

 1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still using it. 
The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at 
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/os/R20.1_Mar71/GC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdf

 2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the storage of 
the terminating job step to be long gone.

 3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the 
Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steff Gladstone 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:

1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google 
doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.

2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being freed 
at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me if SUBPOOL 
alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the 
STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the job-step TCB?  What course is 
recommended?

3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but the 
BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works fine in 
a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code an SVC 99 
call myself?

Thank you  in advance,
Steff Gladstone



On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:

> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but 
> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing 
> >exits
> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. 
> And I'd hope that new exits use it.
>
> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an 
> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Seymour J Metz]

 1. IEFYS is a really old interface; I didn't think anybody was still using it. 
The best place to look is probably the OS/360 documentation at 
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/os/R20.1_Mar71/GC28-6550-9_OS_System_Programmers_Guide_Rel_20.1_Jun71.pdf

 2. Doesn't IEFACTRT run under the Initiator TCB? I would expect the storage of 
the terminating job step to be long gone.

 3. Show your parameter list and return code. You're running under the 
Initiator, so it may be an issue with your security environment.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steff Gladstone 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:

1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.

2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?

3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
an SVC 99 call myself?

Thank you  in advance,
Steff Gladstone



On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:

> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits
> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And
> I'd hope that new exits use it.
>
> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.
>
> --
> 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

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:31:08 -0500, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>"Can dynamically allocate" is not the same as to "can use BPXWDYN". I 
>would guess that you cannot use BPXWDYN except from within the jobstep 
>program task tree. Why did you not post the return information from your 
>BPXWDYN? That might have told you what the problem was, and would have 
>helped the readers from having to guess.
> 
Yes.

From: z/OS Using REXX and z/OS UNIX System Services
Version 2 Release 3 SA23-2283-30
Calling conventions
BPXWDYN must be called in 31-bit mode in an environment that permits dynamic
allocation and dynamic output requests.

You might get more complete information about BPXWDYN from MVS-OE:
For MVS-OE subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO MVS-OE
Or: http://vm.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?MVS-OE

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Peter Relson]

I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?


What is recommended is no different than for any program -- you need to 
understand your environment and the termination characteristics.
If you obtained storage while the job is running, and that storage is 
owned by any task within the jobstep program task tree (i.e., the task 
tree with the EXEC PGM= task at the top), then that storage will have 
been freed if you then run after the termination of that jobstep program 
task (which is when IEFACTRT runs, I think).

Perhaps what is recommended is that your IEFACTRT exit routine not rely on 
storage obtained within the jobstep program task tree. 

TCBJSTCB when running under the jobstep program task tree will not be of 
help. That is athe jobstep program task or a jobstep subtask of that task.
You can identify the proper task or you can get storage in a subpool that 
is not owned by a task (LSQA).  If you get such storage, then it is up to 
you to make sure it gets freed in a timely fashion; the system won't help 
until the ownership rules indicate that it should (e.g., end of address 
space for non-task-owned LSQA).


The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I 
code
an SVC 99 call myself?


"Can dynamically allocate" is not the same as to "can use BPXWDYN". I 
would guess that you cannot use BPXWDYN except from within the jobstep 
program task tree. Why did you not post the return information from your 
BPXWDYN? That might have told you what the problem was, and would have 
helped the readers from having to guess.

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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:53:11 +0200, Steff Gladstone wrote:

>Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
>
>1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
>The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
>doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.
>
>2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
>freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
>if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
>TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
>job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?
>
>3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
>the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
>fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
>an SVC 99 call myself?
>
What was your argument string for BPXWDYN?  Return code?  Message text?

I have used SYSCALL open /dev/console followed by SYSCALL write.

o This gives no control of routing/descriptor.

o Automation may intercept BPXF024I.

Also possible:  SYSCALL writefile /dev/console

Also possible:  BPXWDYN( "alloc path('/dev/console') filedata(text) msg(WTP) 
..." )

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Steff Gladstone]

Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:

1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete.  Google
doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.

2. I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control.  It is not clear to me
if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem.  Do I need to specify
TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on  the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
job-step TCB?  What course is recommended?

3. The documentation says one can dynamically allocate within IEFACTRT but
the BPXWDYN routine returns a non-zero return code.  (Same code that works
fine in a regular program.)  Is this a limitation of BPXWDYN? Should I code
an SVC 99 call myself?

Thank you  in advance,
Steff Gladstone



On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Charles Mills  wrote:

> I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but
> bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits
> that we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And
> I'd hope that new exits use it.
>
> That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an
> unneeded IPL when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.
>
> --
> 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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Charles Mills]

I use the CSVDYNEX interface extensively and it has been nothing but 
bulletproof in all of my experience. Kudos!

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

Peter Relson wrote:

>When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits that 
>we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And I'd hope 
>that new exits use it.

That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an unneeded IPL 
when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Elardus Engelbrecht]

Peter Relson wrote:

>When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits that 
>we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And I'd hope 
>that new exits use it.

That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an unneeded IPL 
when one of my SMF exits went down the bit bucket.

That exit was called once, a dump took place and SMF just disable it. I had to 
remove it from SMFPRMxx and from LPA, analyze the problem and put it back first 
on LPA and then back on SMF.

Years ago, before those dynamic exit facility, it was a real PITA to add a new 
accounting code in IEFUJI exit. Then some one (not me) rewrote the IEFUJI to 
have LOAD  EP= avoiding an IPL.

Now these days we are using RACF to check up those accounting codes. IRREVX00 
exit is also an excellent user of that great dynamic exit facility.

I could also go on for example those ISPF exits which you can reload it by just 
logoff/logon on to TSO.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Peter Relson]

Otherwise you can hook the standard LOAD/LINK/ATTACH SVCs. 


Please do not do that. There is a long history of applications getting 
this wrong.
It is unfortunate that hooking of any SVC was ever viewed as acceptable 
practice.
But in the absence of suitable exits, it can be understandable.

z/OS 2.2 implemented the CSVFETCH exit. Consider using that if you want to 
track every module fetch.

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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Peter Relson]

assuming we are careful to return R15=0 in our exit routines and not 
change
anything in the passed parameters, could that still affect or override in
any way the results of the default or system exit routines already in
effect for those exit points? 


No, it could not.


(Now why certain IBM components
continue not to use it is another matter.)


Because, presumably, there has been not enough call to do so (and there 
is, of course, a cost for implementation). If you have a reason for 
wanting/needing a particular exit to exploit the dynamic exits facility, 
then please submit an RFE. When the facility was developed, we took a stab 
at which existing exits that we thought were most likely to be of help to 
the most customers. And I'd hope that new exits use it.


SYS.IEFUSI AND SYS.IEFACTRT 


I agree with Tony H's point that you need to consider whether you might 
also need the other cases such as SYSSTC.


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

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Tony Harminc]

On 4 October 2018 at 12:56, Charles Mills  wrote:
> The dynamic exits facility does a pretty much perfect job of isolating 
> various exit routines one from another.

I agree with Charles - it's a great facility with about all the power
and convenience one could ask for. (Now why certain IBM components
continue not to use it is another matter.)

Steff Gladstone wrote:
[...]
> (or issue the equivalent CSVDYNEX macro in an assembler program) to add our
> exit routines to the system exit points SYS.IEFUSI AND SYS.IEFACTRT,
[...]

I would just watch for two possible trouble areas:

Will either or both exits get control where you don't expect it, e.g.
for things other than batch jobs/steps? Your code may need to be aware
of its invocation environment that could be TSO, a
forked/spawned/exec'd UNIX job step, or an APPC transaction. Maybe you
don't have any of these, but your code should probably be aware and
ignore them gracefully if you don't want to process them.

On the flip side, dynamically adding exit routines to SYS.xxx may not
be enough to capture everything of interest. If it's your own system
and you know what your SMFPRMxx looks like, then fine. But depending
on the SYS and SUBSYS parameters, there could be exit points for
things like TSO.xxx or IMS.yyy or ASCH.zzz. Best generalized approach
if you're going to use CSVDYNEX is to issue CSVDYNEX  REQUEST=LIST,
and then scan the result for exit point names *ending* in .IEFUSI and
.IEFACTRT (noting that the left parts can be of different lengths). Or
of course just hard code what you know you need.

And it goes without saying that these exits run in the most highly
privileged state possible, i.e. key zero and supervisor state. So code
and test very carefully...

Tony H.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Charles Mills]

The dynamic exits facility does a pretty much perfect job of isolating various 
exit routines one from another.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Steff Gladstone
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 8:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

After a respite of several months this topic has gotten  hot again for us.
We believe that using the IEFUSI and IEFACTRT exits answer our need to gain
control at job-step initialization and again at job-step termination.

My question is:  if we use the dynamic exits facility, that is, the console
command

   SETPROG EXIT,ADD,EX=,MOD=,LAST

(or issue the equivalent CSVDYNEX macro in an assembler program) to add our
exit routines to the system exit points SYS.IEFUSI AND SYS.IEFACTRT, and
assuming we are careful to return R15=0 in our exit routines and not change
anything in the passed parameters, could that still affect or override in
any way the results of the default or system exit routines already in
effect for those exit points?   We would like our exits to be as innocuous
as possible and not adversely affect what is already in the system.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Steff Gladstone]

After a respite of several months this topic has gotten  hot again for us.
We believe that using the IEFUSI and IEFACTRT exits answer our need to gain
control at job-step initialization and again at job-step termination.

My question is:  if we use the dynamic exits facility, that is, the console
command

   SETPROG EXIT,ADD,EX=,MOD=,LAST

(or issue the equivalent CSVDYNEX macro in an assembler program) to add our
exit routines to the system exit points SYS.IEFUSI AND SYS.IEFACTRT, and
assuming we are careful to return R15=0 in our exit routines and not change
anything in the passed parameters, could that still affect or override in
any way the results of the default or system exit routines already in
effect for those exit points?   We would like our exits to be as innocuous
as possible and not adversely affect what is already in the system.

On 8 December 2017 at 15:47, Binyamin Dissen 
wrote:

>
> Your best/easiest would be a SAF exit for checking PROGRAM class - that
> gets
> control for each load without hooking stuff. Otherwise you can hook the
> standard LOAD/LINK/ATTACH SVCs.  The IEFUSI would have the EXEC PGM= name.
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:14:45 +0200 Steff Gladstone <
> steff.gladst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> :>Hi Binyamin,
> :>
> :>The application load libraries are full of obsolete code.  We are trying
> to
> :>identify which programs are still active in the installation in order to
> :>weed out obsolete legacy programs and clean up our load libraries, and
> :>eventually, source libraries.
> :>
> :>We were hoping to choose an optimal exit that would enable us to capture
> :>pertinent info: called load module name, load library name, caller name,
> :>etc.  We would prefer an exit that allows the designation of a number of
> :>individual exit routines per exit (JES2 and CICS and, to a limited
> extent,
> :>DFSMS, provide this capability; I am not aware of other possibilities),
> so
> :>that we could easily disable or remove our code when necessary without
> :>affecting other customized user code in that exit.
> :>
> :>Thanks for any assistance you can extend to us.
> :>
> :>Steff Gladstone
> :>
> :>On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Binyamin Dissen <
> bdis...@dissensoftware.com
> :>> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Can you give an example or two?
> :>>
> :>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:13:47 +0200 Steff Gladstone <
> :>> steff.gladst...@gmail.com>
> :>> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> :>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and
> :>> document
> :>> :>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during  program
> :>> :>initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs).  We would like
> to
> :>> :>implement this in a manner transparent to the application, without
> :>> :>requiring the programmer to add lines of JCL or calls to subroutines
> (we
> :>> :>have thousands of legacy programs and jobs and don't want to have to
> go
> :>> :>through a massive conversion project).
> :>>
> :>> :>We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.   Can anyone
> :>> :>recommend any other system exits that could be candidates for this
> sort
> :>> of
> :>> :>thing.  Any potential pitfalls we should be aware of?
> :>>
> :>> --
> :>> Binyamin Dissen 
> :>> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> :>>
>
> --
> Binyamin Dissen 
> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Elardus Engelbrecht]

Steff Gladstone wrote:

>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document 
>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during program 
>initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs).  

What checks? 


>We would like to implement this in a manner transparent to the application, 
>without requiring the programmer to add lines of JCL or calls to subroutines 
>(we have thousands of legacy programs and jobs and don't want to have to go 
>through a massive conversion project).

Forget about it. No, sorry, I not being funny with you, but really, those 
'change / documentation / check management' and similar software are mostly 
failed to doom and gloom. Rather start with that project when you __start__ a 
mainframe system or a data centre, not when you have gazillion old and new 
programs, JCLs and systems.

I was tasked around 1989-199? to implement Librarian and to invent something 
for documentation of program changes and what they're doing at all. It was a 
PITA which we dropped as soon we can...


>We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.   Can anyone recommend 
>any other system exits that could be candidates for this sort of thing.  

Ok, I said I am not funny with you. One solution is, what submitter are you 
using? If using automation software, then your project is nearly done. just 
modify your automation software for all these jobs and their programs. These 
software have audit logs, if enabled of course.

Those automation software have 'condition codes' which can be used to audit and 
log jobs/steps completion. So you could setup your job with RC=0/4/16 and the 
condition codes can be setup as 'Good/Bad/Ugly' after completion.

Or use RACF and SMF to monitor the loadlibs and program as well data used. Lots 
of hard work and overhead, but can be done.

I believe there are other methods... but CEEBINIT? Not all programs are 
compiled using LE. What will you do if some COBOL programs call an Assembler 
program which disregards LE?


>Any potential pitfalls we should be aware of?

Hmmm, some pitfalls - you will only see the first program [in EXEC PGM=], 
if you want monitor subsequent called programs, you're in trouble, unless you 
can put something in to monitor them too. No, I don't know if that solution is 
possible or useful.

Perhaps you should clarify what you need and give some examples as requested by 
others. I am pretty sure there is a solution for your task.

Good luck and all of the very best for you and your team.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Tom Marchant]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:13:47 +0200, Steff Gladstone wrote:

>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during  program
>initialization and duration ...
>
>We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.   Can anyone
>recommend any other system exits that could be candidates for this sort of
>thing.  Any potential pitfalls we should be aware of?

In order to provide any guidance, we will need more information about the 
kinds of things you want to do. I would be surprised if CEEBINIT would be 
appropriate.

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Binyamin Dissen]

Can you give an example or two?

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:13:47 +0200 Steff Gladstone 
wrote:

:>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
:>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during  program
:>initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs).  We would like to
:>implement this in a manner transparent to the application, without
:>requiring the programmer to add lines of JCL or calls to subroutines (we
:>have thousands of legacy programs and jobs and don't want to have to go
:>through a massive conversion project).

:>We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.   Can anyone
:>recommend any other system exits that could be candidates for this sort of
:>thing.  Any potential pitfalls we should be aware of?

--
Binyamin Dissen 
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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Looking for an appropriate system exit

[Steff Gladstone]

Greetings,

In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during  program
initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs).  We would like to
implement this in a manner transparent to the application, without
requiring the programmer to add lines of JCL or calls to subroutines (we
have thousands of legacy programs and jobs and don't want to have to go
through a massive conversion project).

We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.   Can anyone
recommend any other system exits that could be candidates for this sort of
thing.  Any potential pitfalls we should be aware of?

Thank you,
Steff Gladstone

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN