IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clark Morris
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:30 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
>snip
>
>Given that the problem has been around since VSAM started doing implicit
verifies o
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Clark Morris
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
snip
Given that the problem has been around since VSAM started doing implicit
verifies on OPEN when a verify situation
existed (well over 20 years a
On 18 Apr 2008 05:50:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Kenneth E Tomiak
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 'Now'? I fixed that problem in a COBOL program in Jan 2000. Eight years ago.
>> Someone has not been keeping up to date with the state of the COBOL
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Kenneth E Tomiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 'Now'? I fixed that problem in a COBOL program in Jan 2000. Eight years ago.
> Someone has not been keeping up to date with the state of the COBOL
> compilers. Do you expect the system programmer to tell the applicatio
'Now'? I fixed that problem in a COBOL program in Jan 2000. Eight years ago.
Someone has not been keeping up to date with the state of the COBOL
compilers. Do you expect the system programmer to tell the application
programmer every change in how COBOL is working or that there is a new
COBOL co
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
04/15/2008
at 01:52 PM, "Savor, Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I understand that you guys are very smart folks, but you guys LOVE to
>point all problems at application folks
Perhaps at your shop, alhough I doubt it.
>its tiresome.
What's tiresome is people who pre
snipped
Oh, and I might also mention that our CEO doesn't give a ... whose
problem it was. He just wants it fixed so that the business can go back
to making some money and helping our customers. I think maybe he has the
right idea.
end
We allowed the users 4 weekends with 6 hour windows for te
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chase, John
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:33 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
[snip]
> From "the other side of the fenc
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Savor, Tom
>
> >> And I dislike application folks who won't test in my sandbox then
> complain when
> >> things blow up the first few days after a roll-up.
>
> >> An impasse?
>
> That was the point.
>
> I underst
-
I'm almost sorry I brought this up. The particular programmer who
complained about "it always worked before" consistantly uses that. If
the program ever runs once to good EOJ, then the program is good and any
subsequent failures are because something els
-
And I dislike application folks who won't test in my sandbox then complain
when things blow up the first few days after a roll-up.
-
They're also the ones that complain the loudest when DR testing doesn't
work perfect
I'm almost sorry I brought this up. The particular programmer who
complained about "it always worked before" consistantly uses that. If
the program ever runs once to good EOJ, then the program is good and any
subsequent failures are because something else changed. He even agreed
that testing for 97
I've been on both sides of the fence, as well. 88 GOOD-OPEN VALUE 00, 97.
worked for some years.
Now I'd have to throw in a few other codes if I were writing applications.
And I always told people that a successful test finds a problem. If
you're not finding problems,
either you're not testin
---
> Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> Poster: Don Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
---
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Savor, Tom
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Savor, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And I dislike application folks who won't test in my sandbox then
> complain when
> >> things blow up the first few days after a roll-up.
>
> >> An impasse?
>
> That was the point.
>
> I understand that you guys are ve
>> And I dislike application folks who won't test in my sandbox then
complain when
>> things blow up the first few days after a roll-up.
>> An impasse?
That was the point.
I understand that you guys are very smart folks, but you guys
LOVE to point all problems at application folksits tire
And I dislike application folks who won't test in my sandbox then complain
when things blow up the first few days after a roll-up.
An impasse?
Daniel McLaughlin
Z-Series Systems Programmer
Information & Communications Technology
Crawford & Company
4680 N. Royal Atlanta
Tucker GA 30084
phone
Don Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I agree totally. I hate it when programmers incessantly whine about
>> 'environment' changes impacting their code. Still, if the Sysplex
>> change was described to them as 'transparent', then they should be
allowed to
>> grumble about it. For a little whil
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The fact that file status '97' has now become 'normal' isn't the fault of
> >the original programmer.
>
> No, it's not.
> But, it's somebody's fault if they don't fix it, now that they're aware of
> it.
>
I agree totally
>The fact that file status '97' has now become 'normal' isn't the fault of the
>original programmer.
No, it's not.
But, it's somebody's fault if they don't fix it, now that they're aware of it.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
-
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Leahy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:07 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:54
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The reply from programming: "We never needed it before! Why
> > do we need it just because the VSAM file is OPEN on a
> > different system?
>
>
> What happens if the file is not closed 'cleanly' before the job runs?
>
>> The reply from programming: "We never needed it before! Why
> do we need it just because the VSAM file is OPEN on a
> different system?
What happens if the file is not closed 'cleanly' before the job runs?
The 97 will come up then, as well.
Proper practices mean that you should handle any c
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of McKown, John
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> >
> > >Or just assume '97' is a valid open (which it is) and continue.
> >
> > Better choice!
> > Most
snipped; Our
scheduler fixed the problem by rescheduling the job so that it only runs
when the CICS region is down.
Don't you love it when the elegant fix is the simplest one?
Daniel McLaughlin
Z-Series Systems Programmer
Information & Communications Technology
Crawford & Company
4680 N. R
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:57 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
>
> >Or just assume '97' is
There have been many "good" replies to this note in IBM-MAIN and I would
certainly agree with those that suggest checking for "97" as well as "00" as
a "good" file status value. In fact, you may want to check for "97" or ANY
value starting with "0". (Certainly, you need to check for other "0x" val
>Or just assume '97' is a valid open (which it is) and continue.
Better choice!
Most shops have enough batch window problems without re-running potentially
successful jobs.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN su
I have an interesting observation. I ran an IDCAMS jobs to print 1
record from a VSAM file which I know is OPEN to CICS. If I run it on the
same LPAR as the CICS region, I get NO messages, just the output. When I
run it on a different LPAR, then I get the messages:
IEC161I 056-084,TSH009JX,STEP001
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:55 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:13:58 -0
On 14 Apr 2008 11:14:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chase, John) wrote:
>It's been many years, but ISTR (vaguely) that the 97 occurs at OPEN time
>if an _implicit_ VERIFY was done (i.e., OPEN "discovered" that the
>previous opener of the dataset did not close it "cleanly", so it invoked
>VERIFY "und
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:13:58 -0500, Chase, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > And sysplex has nothing to do with this really. It thought this
>> > needed to be done
>> > since DF/EF in the 80's. I guess if you've run into
>> > previous file status 97s,
>> > someone must have run a VERIFY.
>>
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:14:03 -0500, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I have NO idea about the VERIFY. And, of course, since the last thing
>that we did was convert to a sysplex, the first question out of the
>programmer's mouth was: "It has always worked before. Is the sysplex
>conversio
6 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:33:16 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >No smoke involved. We have that here in many diffe
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:33:16
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:33:16 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No smoke involved. We have that here in many different programs, ALWAYS
>check for BOTH '00' and '97'. Or better yet (as someone else mentioned)
>an 88 level on the FILE-STATUS identifier with both values.
>
A
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
[snip]
> No smoke involved. W
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of McKown, John
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:55 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: COBOL / VSAM question.
>
> I don't like what we are doing, but since
On 14 Apr 2008 08:14:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark
Morris) wrote:
>Very definitely, you should at least be checking for 00 and 97.
>Depending on the files and any recent compiler changes, other
>conditionally successful opens should be checked for.
We had a purchased system that included a c
On 14 Apr 2008 07:56:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>I don't like what we are doing, but since when did that matter?
>
>We have a COBOL batch program which reads a VSAM file which is OPEN to
>cics. I am told that when we ran the program on the same z/OS image as
>the CICS region, th
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: COBOL / VSAM question.
I don't like what we are doing, but since when did that matter?
We have a COBOL
I don't like what we are doing, but since when did that matter?
We have a COBOL batch program which reads a VSAM file which is OPEN to
cics. I am told that when we ran the program on the same z/OS image as
the CICS region, that the OPEN got a FILE STATUS code of 00. We have
split our single system
42 matches
Mail list logo
