On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:29 -0600, Frank Swarbrick
wrote:
>I have a very basic one to complain about:
>
>DFS0929I BLDL FAILED FOR MEMBER --DDMPPSZ
>
>This really means that the specified PSB DDMPPSZ is not in the specified IMS
library. Why can't it just say that? As an application programmer
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:32:29 -0600, Frank Swarbrick
wrote:
>I have a very basic one to complain about:
>
>DFS0929I BLDL FAILED FOR MEMBER --DDMPPSZ
>
>This really means that the specified PSB DDMPPSZ is not in the
>specified IMS library. Why can't it just say that? As an application
> programm
I have a very basic one to complain about:
DFS0929I BLDL FAILED FOR MEMBER --DDMPPSZ
This really means that the specified PSB DDMPPSZ is not in the specified IMS
library. Why can't it just say that? As an application programmer do I really
need to know that BLDL means, well, whatever it means
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:53:26 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe
wrote:
>
>The "IBM convention as to importance (W,I,E,C)" does not apply to
>console messages. As far as I know this has always been the case.
>For console messages I believe W is for a Wait State message, E is
>for an eventual response needed
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:01:03 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>... ideally USS messages are
>composed within the installation and so, if they are inscrutable,
>the person to whom to complain should be available with an
>"in-organisation" telephone call - assuming the original author
>hasn't been "let
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:33:38 -0700, Ed Gould wrote:
>...
>Pat:I am not sure I agree , but I think that most USS messages are at >best
inscrutable.
Since I'm one of those that "gets anal" over this use of USS, I'll object
up front and you can not care starting now.
More importantly, I'm not sur
du
Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse?
Steve
I could say that IBM-MAIN posts were getting worse what with commenting
before the quoted post(s) - much preferred by yours truly - or
commenting
after the quoted posts and maybe not having quoted lines preceded by
greater than signs, it can b
r messages getting worse?
>
>--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
>
>From: Patrick O'Keefe
>Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse?
>To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2:29 PM
>
>On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400, David Andrews=20
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse?
--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
From: Patrick O&
/09, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
>
>From: Patrick O'Keefe
>Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse?
>To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2:29 PM
>
>On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400, David Andrews
> wrote:
>
>
>
>I think you make a ve
--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
From: Patrick O'Keefe
Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse?
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2:29 PM
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400, David Andrews
wrote:
I think you make a very good point. There h
>There have always been absolutely inscrutable MVS messages and there will
>probably be new ones.
Can you say COBOL, boys and girls?
These obscure ones are so 'self-documenting' that there is no reason to
document them!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
---
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400, David Andrews
wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 17:33 -0400, John Mattson wrote:
>> Am I just getting more cranky as I age, or are IBM messages
>> getting ever more obtuse?
>
>I wouldn't say more obtuse. Remember this chestnut?
>
>IEB817I MEMBER NAME NOT
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 17:33 -0400, John Mattson wrote:
> Am I just getting more cranky as I age, or are IBM messages
> getting ever more obtuse?
I wouldn't say more obtuse. Remember this chestnut?
IEB817I MEMBER NAME NOT FOUND IN NM DIRECTORY. STOWED WITH TTR.
which meant: "I added a
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: IBM error messages getting worse?
Am I just getting more cranky as I age, or are IBM messages
getting ever more obtuse?
I just submitted a simple JCL error. Just put in a
VOL=SER=XX where XX is a volume we do not have in our shop.
Should
Am I just getting more cranky as I age, or are IBM messages
getting ever more obtuse?
I just submitted a simple JCL error. Just put in a VOL=SER=XX
where XX is a volume we do not have in our shop. Should be a simple
error, with a simple IBM Message saying "That VOLSER
16 matches
Mail list logo
