AW: Re: [EXTERNAL] AW: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
>I have a fairly simple ISPF dialog to work with the ZSTART variable. Get it >from www.lbdsoftware.com/zstart.zip or www.cbttape.org file 314. Great! Thanks for the pointer. I just think it's a typical shame that the product (ISPF) delivers halfway features. How small an effort would this be to offer a similar dialog as part of ISPF? -- Peter Hunkeler -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] AW: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I have a fairly simple ISPF dialog to work with the ZSTART variable. Get it from www.lbdsoftware.com/zstart.zip or www.cbttape.org file 314. -- Lionel B. Dyck (Contractor) < Mainframe Systems Programmer - RavenTek Solution Partners -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:20 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] AW: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >If you like the benefits of many split screens then have a logon proc >(Clist/REXX) create the split screens automagically for you each logon. I have >8 session created behind the scenes. Have a look aht the ZSTART ISPF variable. It is there for just this reason. As usual with the ISPF guys, the forget to make it easy to use; there is no standard ISPF dialog to set it. Build your own or manipulate ZSTART via ISPF variable dialogue. -- Peter Hunkeler -- 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
AW: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
>If you like the benefits of many split screens then have a logon proc >(Clist/REXX) create the split screens automagically for you each logon. I have >8 session created behind the scenes. Have a look aht the ZSTART ISPF variable. It is there for just this reason. As usual with the ISPF guys, the forget to make it easy to use; there is no standard ISPF dialog to set it. Build your own or manipulate ZSTART via ISPF variable dialogue. -- Peter Hunkeler -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
Yeah, I almost always configured for one big partition and did both SPLIT and VSPLIT. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of John McKown Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:26 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > There were still 3290s used as consoles in the 2000s. I wish that I had a > 3290-compatible TN3270 client. > YES, from your mouth to a vendor's ear. I would love the ability to have a single TN3270E client which implemented "partitioned" mode so that I do could an ISPF VSPLIT. I don't really see the need for a multi-LU mode like the 3290 had. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > -- Rap music is performed by those that can not sing so others can not think. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM Seymour J Metz wrote: > There were still 3290s used as consoles in the 2000s. I wish that I had a > 3290-compatible TN3270 client. > YES, from your mouth to a vendor's ear. I would love the ability to have a single TN3270E client which implemented "partitioned" mode so that I do could an ISPF VSPLIT. I don't really see the need for a multi-LU mode like the 3290 had. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > -- Rap music is performed by those that can not sing so others can not think. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
There were still 3290s used as consoles in the 2000s. I wish that I had a 3290-compatible TN3270 client. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of CM Poncelet Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 9:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I still used a locally attached terminal in 1998 . CP On 06/06/2018 20:40, Rob Schramm wrote: > > Do they really need to lock their TSO screen? Isn't having a windows > locktime sufficient? > > While this setting was certainly important during the golden age of > terminals... how many of us actually use a terminal anymore? In the last > 10 years? In the last 20 years? > > How many have a corporate defined windows screen lock? (I can't comment on > Linux.. maybe some others can chime in) > > What actual security is enhanced by locking a 3270 terminal that is not > addressed by locking the medium used to access the 3270 session? > (this may be turning into a rant) > > I haven't actually given this much thought or examined my own reasoning for > demanding locked sessions and auto-logoff for 3270.. but is the practice > actually providing the security benefit so many time espoused and demanded? > > > > Rob Schramm > > p.s. If I have gone too far afield in this thread.. I can start another > one. > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:23 PM Clark Morris > wrote: > >> [Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: >>> >>>> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 >>>> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under >>>> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. >>>> >>> ?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL exit, >>> implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time between >>> 06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, and >>> bull sessions without losing their place.? >>> >> They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from >> a security point of view. >> >> Clark Morris >>>> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using >>>> batch instead of TSO. >>>> >>>> >>>> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD >>>> President-Programmer >>>> Merrill Consultants >>>> MXG Software >>>> 10717 Cromwell Drive >>>> Dallas, TX 75229 >>>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1uM-bd3j2fACf3IJZgHVHzIjVNHHwPDhpDpnGC3iivaJfovt9fQ2JOy5gugQIJwQfTiymFdfjKJlhZxLlOeKR57c0j6uqtdDWbsCZmccgXUaeeME6p9TbkYJqayDNC_ttlMdWEoSIS0CHP6QDacZiWohfXf5-mcZK8-yrCLadnh5NEtgQa35b1vw4-wsHJ83FHS0VmY1jyjOeirxeCXkyaZIpmK32CLexYmVCG1lx7g87zOk7Zo_ItKjLlkgQgDHGKcG8pBEaXAg8zPITdes3Nz2GhaWF5aJRK1U7UFDmas1i6iRNntN7blLfSFOYOFpxiJr7VygnZ8giyJPbm27fu3pw8vMJ6mzfX5NW3ExWWcg3BnjuBQ7zevcYCFM8zAsPDzdgtoQO2bVyCTWJwv_-PxlHDNM4Q9Sch-96jP1zITdAb0HpYaV0JWo-Bl-YhGwC/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mxg.com >>>> ba...@mxg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Charles Mills >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >>>> >>>> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. >>>> >>>> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend >> to >>>> be >>>> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. >> Sometimes I >>>> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do >> not. >>>> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find >> Windows >>>> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left >> it. >>>> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. >>>> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) >>>> >>>> Charles >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge >>>> Sent: Tuesda
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
IMHO timeouts are a security issue, period. The resource issues of the 1960s and 19702 have not been relevant in a long time. That said, I don't see sending a periodic Enter as a safe option. Isn't there something that you could sent that will have no effect on the session other than terminating and restarting the terminal wait? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Nightwatch RenBand Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I have long questioned the validity of TSO timeouts during normal working hours. I question whether the resource savings, outweigh the resource costs, including user time, of repeated logons and lost work. MY personal solution is to take advantage of the excellent scripting which comes with my 3270 emulation. Rocket Software BlueZone. It does logon, password must be manual of course, sets up all my screens just like I like, and then goes into a loop just less then the TSO timeout and does CURSOR and ENTER and goes back to sleep. When something goes wrong in a major system, I need my sessions UP and monitors RUNNING. -- 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
And we have a winner in the 15-20 year range.. *UGH* Really takes the wind out of my "rant filled sails". I guess I should really expect such things... mainframes.. like the old Timex commercials "takes a licking, and keeps on ticking" Rob Schramm On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:35 PM CM Poncelet wrote: > I still used a locally attached terminal in 1998 . CP > > On 06/06/2018 20:40, Rob Schramm wrote: > > > > Do they really need to lock their TSO screen? Isn't having a windows > > locktime sufficient? > > > > While this setting was certainly important during the golden age of > > terminals... how many of us actually use a terminal anymore? In the last > > 10 years? In the last 20 years? > > > > How many have a corporate defined windows screen lock? (I can't comment > on > > Linux.. maybe some others can chime in) > > > > What actual security is enhanced by locking a 3270 terminal that is not > > addressed by locking the medium used to access the 3270 session? > > (this may be turning into a rant) > > > > I haven't actually given this much thought or examined my own reasoning > for > > demanding locked sessions and auto-logoff for 3270.. but is the practice > > actually providing the security benefit so many time espoused and > demanded? > > > > > > > > Rob Schramm > > > > p.s. If I have gone too far afield in this thread.. I can start another > > one. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:23 PM Clark Morris > > wrote: > > > >> [Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > >> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: > >>> > >>>> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 > >>>> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under > >>>> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. > >>>> > >>> ?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL > exit, > >>> implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time > between > >>> 06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, > and > >>> bull sessions without losing their place.? > >>> > >> They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from > >> a security point of view. > >> > >> Clark Morris > >>>> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using > >>>> batch instead of TSO. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD > >>>> President-Programmer > >>>> Merrill Consultants > >>>> MXG Software > >>>> 10717 Cromwell Drive > >>>> Dallas, TX 75229 > >>>> www.mxg.com > >>>> ba...@mxg.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >> On > >>>> Behalf Of Charles Mills > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM > >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. > >>>> > >>>> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend > >> to > >>>> be > >>>> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. > >> Sometimes I > >>>> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do > >> not. > >>>> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find > >> Windows > >>>> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I > left > >> it. > >>>> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. > >>>> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) > >>>> > >>>> Charles > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >> On > >>>> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I still used a locally attached terminal in 1998 . CP On 06/06/2018 20:40, Rob Schramm wrote: > > Do they really need to lock their TSO screen? Isn't having a windows > locktime sufficient? > > While this setting was certainly important during the golden age of > terminals... how many of us actually use a terminal anymore? In the last > 10 years? In the last 20 years? > > How many have a corporate defined windows screen lock? (I can't comment on > Linux.. maybe some others can chime in) > > What actual security is enhanced by locking a 3270 terminal that is not > addressed by locking the medium used to access the 3270 session? > (this may be turning into a rant) > > I haven't actually given this much thought or examined my own reasoning for > demanding locked sessions and auto-logoff for 3270.. but is the practice > actually providing the security benefit so many time espoused and demanded? > > > > Rob Schramm > > p.s. If I have gone too far afield in this thread.. I can start another > one. > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:23 PM Clark Morris > wrote: > >> [Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: >>> >>>> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 >>>> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under >>>> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. >>>> >>> ?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL exit, >>> implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time between >>> 06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, and >>> bull sessions without losing their place.? >>> >> They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from >> a security point of view. >> >> Clark Morris >>>> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using >>>> batch instead of TSO. >>>> >>>> >>>> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD >>>> President-Programmer >>>> Merrill Consultants >>>> MXG Software >>>> 10717 Cromwell Drive >>>> Dallas, TX 75229 >>>> www.mxg.com >>>> ba...@mxg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Charles Mills >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >>>> >>>> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. >>>> >>>> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend >> to >>>> be >>>> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. >> Sometimes I >>>> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do >> not. >>>> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find >> Windows >>>> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left >> it. >>>> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. >>>> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) >>>> >>>> Charles >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM >>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >>>> >>>> I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. >>>> >>>> /* REXX */ >>>> /* TRACE I */ >>>> ADDRESS ISPEXEC >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" >>>> /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT >>>> PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" >>>> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; S
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
Do they really need to lock their TSO screen? Isn't having a windows locktime sufficient? While this setting was certainly important during the golden age of terminals... how many of us actually use a terminal anymore? In the last 10 years? In the last 20 years? How many have a corporate defined windows screen lock? (I can't comment on Linux.. maybe some others can chime in) What actual security is enhanced by locking a 3270 terminal that is not addressed by locking the medium used to access the 3270 session? (this may be turning into a rant) I haven't actually given this much thought or examined my own reasoning for demanding locked sessions and auto-logoff for 3270.. but is the practice actually providing the security benefit so many time espoused and demanded? Rob Schramm p.s. If I have gone too far afield in this thread.. I can start another one. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:23 PM Clark Morris wrote: > [Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: > > > >> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 > >> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under > >> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. > >> > > > >?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL exit, > >implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time between > >06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, and > >bull sessions without losing their place.? > > > They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from > a security point of view. > > Clark Morris > > > >> > >> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using > >> batch instead of TSO. > >> > >> > >> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD > >> President-Programmer > >> Merrill Consultants > >> MXG Software > >> 10717 Cromwell Drive > >> Dallas, TX 75229 > >> www.mxg.com > >> ba...@mxg.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On > >> Behalf Of Charles Mills > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >> > >> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. > >> > >> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend > to > >> be > >> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. > Sometimes I > >> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do > not. > >> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find > Windows > >> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left > it. > >> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. > >> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) > >> > >> Charles > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On > >> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > >> > >> I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. > >> > >> /* REXX */ > >> /* TRACE I */ > >> ADDRESS ISPEXEC > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" > >> /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT > >> PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" > >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" > >> EXIT(0) > >> > >> > >> I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the > >> Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this > can > >> be > >> done automagically). > >> &g
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
[Default] On 6 Jun 2018 04:53:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: >On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: > >> I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 >> for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under >> TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. >> > >?The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL exit, >implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time between >06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, and >bull sessions without losing their place.? > They need to be able to lock their screens for this to be viable from a security point of view. Clark Morris > >> >> However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using >> batch instead of TSO. >> >> >> Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD >> President-Programmer >> Merrill Consultants >> MXG Software >> 10717 Cromwell Drive >> Dallas, TX 75229 >> www.mxg.com >> ba...@mxg.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of Charles Mills >> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >> >> Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. >> >> I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend to >> be >> a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. Sometimes I >> get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do not. >> I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find Windows >> right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left it. >> (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. >> John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) >> >> Charles >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge >> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >> >> I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. >> >> /* REXX */ >> /* TRACE I */ >> ADDRESS ISPEXEC >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" >> /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT >> PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" >> "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" >> EXIT(0) >> >> >> I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the >> Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this can >> be >> done automagically). >> >> >> Jerry Whitteridge >> Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect >> GTS - Safeway Account >> 602 527 4871 Mobile >> jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com >> >> IBM Services >> >> IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on >> 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: >> >> > From: Charles Mills >> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> > Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM >> > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement Sent by: IBM Mainframe >> > Discussion List >> > >> > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate >> > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I >> > see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is >> > because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have >> > ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. >> > >> > Charles >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU ] >> > On Behalf Of John McKown >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM >> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> > Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement >> > >> > I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this m
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Barry Merrill wrote: > I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 > for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under > TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. > The programmers here had the same complaint. We now have an IEFUTL exit, implemented in CA-OPS/MVS REXX, which will extend their wait time between 06:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. That way they can go to meetings, lunch, and bull sessions without losing their place. > > However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using > batch instead of TSO. > > > Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD > President-Programmer > Merrill Consultants > MXG Software > 10717 Cromwell Drive > Dallas, TX 75229 > www.mxg.com > ba...@mxg.com > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. > > I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend to > be > a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. Sometimes I > get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do not. > I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find Windows > right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left it. > (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. > John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. > > /* REXX */ > /* TRACE I */ > ADDRESS ISPEXEC > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" > /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT > PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" > "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" > EXIT(0) > > > I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the > Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this can > be > done automagically). > > > Jerry Whitteridge > Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect > GTS - Safeway Account > 602 527 4871 Mobile > jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com > > IBM Services > > IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on > 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: > > > From: Charles Mills > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM > > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement Sent by: IBM Mainframe > > Discussion List > > > > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I > > see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is > > because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have > > ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. > > > > Charles > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU ] > > On Behalf Of John McKown > > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > > > I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my > > Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a > > message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. > > > > So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do > > something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think > > it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps > > called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This > > facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any > > changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
This. I have this setup as my ZSTART variable: Variable P A Value +1+2+3+4+5+-- ZSTART P ISPF;SYSNAME ON;START 3.A;;SWAP NEXT More here: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/IBMRedbooksSystemz/entry/automatically_start_multiple_log ical_screen_when_starting_ispf?lang=en On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:05 PM Tom Conley wrote: > On 6/5/2018 3:34 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I see the > benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is because of the > need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have ISPF automatically > restore my previous setup it would be great. > > > > Charles > > Lookup ZSTART. > > Regards, > Tom Conley > > -- > 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:50:30 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >2. With RECOVERY ON, you don't lose anything in the editor before the last >ENTER. (You lose changes keyed onto the screen but not "ENTERed.") > You want a single-level storage image. But that comes at a price. If at all. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
> the loss of everything under TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. 1. That's configurable, isn't it? SMFJWT or something? There are also 3270 emulators I think that will hit ENTER for you every 'n' minutes. 2. With RECOVERY ON, you don't lose anything in the editor before the last ENTER. (You lose changes keyed onto the screen but not "ENTERed.") I just remembered the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, the resultant power outage, and desperately trying to reconnect back onto our remote mainframe so I would not lose a whole slew of pending edits. Don't recall whether I succeeded or not. I suspect not. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Barry Merrill Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 2:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:39:57 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. > >I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend to be >a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. Sometimes I >get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do not. >I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find Windows >right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left it. >(I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. >John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) > Ever since TSO gained the RECONNECT option I have been able to simply pull the plug, kill my emulator, whatever, and reconnect from elsewhere. The grievous deficiency here is that if I reconnect with a different terminal geometry, Bad Things Happen (unrecoverable and recurrent terminal I/O errors, etc) XEDIT recovers gracefully if I reconnect with a different terminal geometry so it's not technically impossible; just half-hearted ISPF design. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I left z/OS as a development platform, going to Windows in 1996 for MXG Software totally because of the loss of everything under TSO if I didn't hit enter every 45 minutes. However, it is still the primary QA test platform, but using batch instead of TSO. Herbert W. "Barry" Merrill, PhD President-Programmer Merrill Consultants MXG Software 10717 Cromwell Drive Dallas, TX 75229 www.mxg.com ba...@mxg.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend to be a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. Sometimes I get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do not. I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find Windows right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left it. (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. /* REXX */ /* TRACE I */ ADDRESS ISPEXEC "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" EXIT(0) I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this can be done automagically). Jerry Whitteridge Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect GTS - Safeway Account 602 527 4871 Mobile jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com IBM Services IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: > From: Charles Mills > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement Sent by: IBM Mainframe > Discussion List > > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I > see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is > because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have > ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU ] > On Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my > Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a > message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. > > So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do > something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think > it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps > called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This > facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any > changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the > next day, ISPF would give > you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems > about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only > issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP > or SPLIT, when > you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that > it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would > indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". > The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT > which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the > application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF > environment (close files, etc) > before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, > the application is re
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
Thanks. I will give that sort of thing a try. I *still* like John's weird thought. I work from a home office. I tend to be a little loose with the demarcation between work and not work. Sometimes I get up from my PC. Sometimes I come back in 20 minutes. Sometimes I do not. I like that whether I am gone for ten seconds or ten hours, I find Windows right where I left it. It would be nice if ISPF were right where I left it. (I understand the resource and security advantages of a forced logoff. John's weird thought would make that logoff more transparent.) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. /* REXX */ /* TRACE I */ ADDRESS ISPEXEC "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" EXIT(0) I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this can be done automagically). Jerry Whitteridge Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect GTS - Safeway Account 602 527 4871 Mobile jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com IBM Services IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: > From: Charles Mills > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I > see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is > because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have > ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > ] On Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome > browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message > asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. > > So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do > something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it > would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called > something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would > let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in > EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give > you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about > restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the > above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when > you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that > it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate > "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The > application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would > basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The > application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) > before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the > application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At > this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, > non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). > This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. > Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. > > -- > 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
On 6/5/2018 3:34 PM, Charles Mills wrote: I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. Charles Lookup ZSTART. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I use a rexx exec to "script" all my sessions every time I logon. /* REXX */ /* TRACE I */ ADDRESS ISPEXEC "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME SDSF2 PERM; =SDSF; SWAP LAST) " "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT1 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" /*ELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME EDIT2 PERM; =2; SWAP LAST)" */ "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME MYDS PERM; REFOPEND; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME BROWSE1 PERM; =1; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME TSO PERM; =6; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(SCRNAME DSLIST PERM; =3.4; SWAP LAST)" "SELECT PGM(ISPSTRT) PARM(TSO WORKPL)" EXIT(0) I call this SESSTART and simply do a TSO SESSTART as soon as I am at the Primary option menu after logging on. (In 2.2 or above I believe this can be done automagically). Jerry Whitteridge Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect GTS - Safeway Account 602 527 4871 Mobile jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com IBM Services IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/05/2018 12:33:59 PM: > From: Charles Mills > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 06/05/2018 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate > configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I > see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is > because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have > ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > ] On Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement > > I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome > browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message > asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. > > So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do > something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it > would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called > something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would > let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in > EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give > you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about > restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the > above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when > you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that > it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate > "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The > application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would > basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The > application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) > before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the > application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At > this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, > non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). > This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. > Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. > > -- > 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
If you like the benefits of many split screens then have a logon proc (Clist/REXX) create the split screens automagically for you each logon. I have 8 session created behind the scenes. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 12:34 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN __ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or distribution, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I'd rather have ISPF fix whatever is preventing you from scripting the setup you want. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 3:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. -- 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
I really like it. I have an associate who sets up some elaborate configuration of SPLITs. He is always selling me on the benefits. I see the benefits, but one of the reasons I do not follow suit is because of the need to re-do it on every logon. If I could just have ISPF automatically restore my previous setup it would be great. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
My first thought is that it's nice as you described. If you submit an RFE, please explicitly ask that it not be automatic unless you can inhibit the automatic restart in your profile. Whether you can make a business case is a separate issue. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 2:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. So, what are your thoughts? -- Once a government places vague notions of public safety and security above the preservation of freedom, a general loss of liberty is sure to follow. GCS Griffin -- Pelaran Alliance -- TFS Guardian (book) Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- 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: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement
Personally I only care about edit sessions that I may have been in when my session died, so EDIT RECOVERY is always on, not sure I'd really care about other options or panels I was in at the time of death. being an DOF, I'd prolly see all my session stuff restored and scratch my head wondering why I was there and why I had so many screens active and start the orderly PF3,PF3,PF3..oops Carmen Vitullo - Original Message - From: "John McKown" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 1:50:46 PM Subject: Weird thought for ISPF enhancement I'm short of sleep ... again. When I came to work this morning, my Chrome browser was "dead". When I restarted it, it prompted me with a message asking if I wanted to restore all the pages I had been on. So, what occurred to me was, "Wouldn't it be nice if ISPF could do something like that." Now, ISPF doesn't really die often. But I think it would be a nice feature if there were a new ISPF command, perhaps called something like "SAVELEAVE" or HIBERNATE or whatever. This facility would let you logoff for the day, optionally SAVEing any changes if you're in EDIT or one or more screens. When you come in the next day, ISPF would give you an option to restore all your screens. Yes, there are problems about restarting an ISPF application, but basically you could only issue the above command at certain times, just like you can only SWAP or SPLIT, when you're in an DISPLAY verb. What I envision for an ISPF application is that it would get a special RC from the ISPF DISPLAY verb which would indicate "user wants to leave, checkpoint or abandon your processing". The application could then only do something like ISPF CHECKPOINT which would basically return to ISPF and ISPF would terminate the application. The application would need to save its non-ISPF environment (close files, etc) before it issued the CHECKPOINT. When the user gets back into ISPF, the application is restarted at the next instruction after the CHECKPOINT. At this point, the application would be responsible to restore its internal, non-ISPF maintained, status (open files, reload important variable, etc). This would occur for each active screen which did the ISPF CHECKPOINT. Well, that's likely getting too detailed for a general, initial, discussion. So, what are your thoughts? -- Once a government places vague notions of public safety and security above the preservation of freedom, a general loss of liberty is sure to follow. GCS Griffin -- Pelaran Alliance -- TFS Guardian (book) Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- 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
