-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
At 09:21 -0600 on 12/19/2007, Mark Zelden wrote about Re: Bad JOB
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
SNIP
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:46:48 -0800, Edward Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thompson, Steve wrote:
... If you want blind ship then use /*XMIT not /*XEQ
In this day and age, it's best to avoid JECL altogether when possible.
As of z/OS 1.4, JES2 finally supports the XMIT JCL statement.
So what
Mark Zelden wrote:
So what are the practical advantages of using
//XMITJC JOB...
// XMIT DEST=node
//REALJOB JOB ..
vs.
//XMITJC JOB...
/*XMIT node
//REALJOB JOB ..
It's a continuation of the trend away from JES-specific JECL (e.g., JES2
/*OUTPUT or JES3 //*FORMAT) toward JES-neutral
On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:30 PM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
SNIPAGE
Steve,
I think I understand your issue, but to muddy the water
On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
--SNIP
Discussion List
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
At 09:21 -0600 on 12/19/2007, Mark Zelden wrote about Re: Bad JOB
card through NJE:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:46:48 -0800, Edward Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thompson, Steve wrote:
... If you want blind ship then use /*XMIT not /*XEQ
In this day and age, it's best to avoid JECL
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:04:39 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote:
You could argue in favor of some 'basic' set of jobcard parameters, but the
problem for JES2 is the other side of the same coin that gives us the power
through well defined exits to alter most anything in a job stream. Messing
with jobcard
How many of you have had to chase down some JOB that had a bad parm on
it, but the submitting system was not the detecting system, even though
both are JES2 systems?
Is it time for IBM to sync JCL processing again? Do we still need this
because one system is running MVS/SP1 and another is running
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
How many of you have had to chase down some JOB that had a bad parm on
it, but the submitting system was not the detecting system, even
though
both are JES2 systems?
Is it time for IBM to sync JCL processing again? Do we still need this
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bad JOB card through NJE
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
How many of you have had
Thompson, Steve wrote:
... If you want blind ship then use /*XMIT not /*XEQ
In this day and age, it's best to avoid JECL altogether when possible.
As of z/OS 1.4, JES2 finally supports the XMIT JCL statement.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite
On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
SNIP
Has something changed?
SNIP
We seem to have a problem with RACF in this case. The JOB gets to the
receiving node and gets a syntax error. However, my point is, the JOB
card was invalid to start, it and the rest of
Ed Gould wrote:
We used both *EXTENSIVELY*. We were pretty locked down with ACF2. I
reviewed the rules almost every other month, except the system stuff
and I reviewed that every other week personally. I was almost
paranoid with all the NJE activity and we logged quite a bit and I
reviewed
On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
We used both *EXTENSIVELY*. We were pretty locked down with ACF2.
I reviewed the rules almost every other month, except the system
stuff and I reviewed that every other week personally. I was
almost paranoid with all the
17 matches
Mail list logo
