Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Looks like some words got repeated when my message got posted. W. Kevin Kelley -- IBM POK Lab -- z/OS Core Technical Development -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.ed

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Thu, 3 May 2012 20:46:29 -0500, W. Kevin Kelley wrote: >In z/OS R13, DFSMS changed approximately 400 of their rather cryptic IEC error >messages to include additional lines of explanation. Feedback from R13 ESP >customers indicated that the additional lines of explanation were appreciated

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Mark, The concern was about the clutter that the additional message lines would cause. Also, the same explanation lines are repeated in each instance of the error message, so there would be a lot of redundancy. >If the new MPFLSTxx option has it disabled by default or enables the verbose >mess

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

At 22:03 -0500 on 05/03/2012, W. Kevin Kelley wrote about Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?: The concern was about the clutter that the additional message lines would cause. Also, the same explanation lines are repeated in each instance of the error message, so there would be a lot of

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

My organization is on the ESP program. We also requested a 'non-verbose' option. The extra messages are essentially a verbatim copy of the explanatory text in the messages manual(s). Which resulted in messages that weren't just a few extra lines, but often a dozen or many more lines. What we w

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Sent: Friday, 4 May 2012 1:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? At 22:03 -0500 on 05/03/2012, W. Kevin Kelley wrote about Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?: >The concern was about the clutter that the additional message lines >would cause. Als

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Hi, I realize you said that you contacted the Automation Software companies, but you didn't contact us. We have hundreds of sites running our automation software, and while we were aware of how to process and not process the verbose messages, we were never contacted from you (or anyone) to ask

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In <5625217423916820.wa.wkkelleyoptonline@bama.ua.edu>, on 05/03/2012 at 08:46 PM, "W. Kevin Kelley" said: >Any comments/criticisms/suggestions? Suggestion: allow .MSGOPTION to enable writing the verbose message lines to SYSLOG/OPERLOG. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOA

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Thu, 3 May 2012 22:03:03 -0500, W. Kevin Kelley wrote: > >>If the new MPFLSTxx option has it disabled by default or enables the verbose >>messages, what >>purpose does the OCE_ABEND_DESCRIP=YES serve in DEVSUPxx? > >The DEVSUPxx external has been deprecated and replaced by the MPFLSTxx >.MS

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Fri, 4 May 2012 03:57:24 -0500, Brian Westerman wrote: >I realize that CPUs are a lot faster than they have ever been, but using the >resources on frivolous things like keeping people from having to look up a >message by always printing the verbose text is silly. Most people have the >man

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/3/2012 9:48 PM, W. Kevin Kelley wrote: In z/OS R13, DFSMS changed approximately 400 of their rather cryptic IEC error messages to include additional lines of explanation. Feedback from R13 ESP customers indicated that the additional lines of explanation were appreciated for end-users but

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/3/2012 7:15 PM, Mark Zelden wrote: If the new MPFLSTxx option has it disabled by default or enables the verbose messages, what purpose does the OCE_ABEND_DESCRIP=YES serve in DEVSUPxx? What if you want the original behavior? I ask, because I like it. I also like the current behavior. J

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

ip Robinson SCE Infrastructure Technology Services Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: Edward Jaffe To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/04/2012 08:43 AM Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

02-7535 Office > 323-715-0595 Mobile > jo.skip.robin...@sce.com > > > > From: Edward Jaffe > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Date: 05/04/2012 08:43 AM > Subject:Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? > Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Fri, 4 May 2012 08:56:38 -0700, Skip Robinson wrote: > >I like the solution. The installation can turn verbose on or off globally. >The new 'filter' allows us to direct long explanations to just the >programmer--my preference--or to syslog/operlog. Why complain about 'too >much control'? > Be

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Fri, 4 May 2012 08:42:37 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: >On 5/3/2012 7:15 PM, Mark Zelden wrote: >> >> If the new MPFLSTxx option has it disabled by default or enables the verbose >> messages, what >> purpose does the OCE_ABEND_DESCRIP=YES serve in DEVSUPxx? What if you want >> the >> origina

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/4/2012 8:56 AM, Skip Robinson wrote: I like the solution. The installation can turn verbose on or off globally. The new 'filter' allows us to direct long explanations to just the programmer--my preference--or to syslog/operlog. Why complain about 'too much control'? You misunderstood. With

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/4/2012 7:52 AM, Thomas Conley wrote: I think the MPFLST option should be something like JOBLOG, SYSLOG, or BOTH. That should satisfy the needs of all parties. My choice would be BOTH. Thanks again for this enhancement. I like this idea. However, I would caution against the use of the

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

obile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: Edward Jaffe To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/04/2012 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List On 5/4/2012 8:56 AM, Skip Robinson wrote: > I like the solution. The installation

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:12:30 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: >On 5/4/2012 7:52 AM, Thomas Conley wrote: >> >> I think the MPFLST option should be something like JOBLOG, SYSLOG, or BOTH. >> That should satisfy the needs of all parties. > >I like this idea. However, I would caution against the use of the

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Hi Kevin, In my shop, all of our support staff have access to view syslog/operlog , both the active and previous.  W e would want to see the messaging in the syslog/operlog AND the joblog , but would want to have the ability to filter the verbose lines off of the console.  This is not an eff

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

>Please avoid an absurdity such as "AMODE(ANY)", where >"ANY" no longer means "any", but instead "any except 64". Tongue in cheek: sorry for not being prescient enough in (approximately) 1977 to think that someone might ever need 64-bits worth of addressability. It seems obvious now. No, reall

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In , on 05/05/2012 at 05:56 PM, Peter Relson said: >Tongue in cheek: sorry for not being prescient enough in >(approximately) 1977 to think that someone might ever need 64-bits >worth of addressability. You didn't need to be prescient, just extrapolate long term trends. -- Shmuel (S

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Brian, If you are not receiving our Interface Change Notifications (ICNs), then we need to get that fixed. All of the automation venders that we interacted with were notified through that process and contacted me as a result. W. Kevin Kelley -- IBM POK Lab -- z/OS Core Technical Development -

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Mark, You are correct -- there is now no option to put the additional lines of explanation in the SYSLOG/OPERLOG. We reacted to what we heard from the ESP customers, and to quote you perhaps they "overreacted". That is why I put the post out here, to hear what other people think. W. Kevin Kell

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

At 17:56 -0400 on 05/05/2012, Peter Relson wrote about Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?: >Please avoid an absurdity such as "AMODE(ANY)", where "ANY" no longer means "any", but instead "any except 64". Tongue in cheek: sorry for not being

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:23:14 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > >The problem is that before 64 AMODE you had 3 AMODE Choices - >24-Only, 31-Only, or BOTH 24 and 31 (ie: Any). If I code AMODE-31 I >can have problems with something that needs AMODE-24. There needs to >be am AMODE (such as ALL) to say

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:23:14 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >The problem is that before 64 AMODE you had 3 AMODE Choices - >24-Only, 31-Only, or BOTH 24 and 31 (ie: Any). Where does AMODE(ANY) mean both? Certainly not on the AMODE assembler instruction or in the binder. >If I code AMODE-31 I

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/7/2012 7:54 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:23:14 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: The problem is that before 64 AMODE you had 3 AMODE Choices - 24-Only, 31-Only, or BOTH 24 and 31 (ie: Any). Where does AMODE(ANY) mean both? Certainly not on the AMODE assembler instructio

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:09:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: > >AMODE ANY means the program will be given control in >the AMODE of its invoker and supports running in AMODE24 >or AMODE31, whichever it's caller is currently running in. > Of course this contradicts the conventional English notion of "any

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/7/2012 8:25 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:09:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: AMODE ANY means the program will be given control in the AMODE of its invoker and supports running in AMODE24 or AMODE31, whichever it's caller is currently running in. Of course this contradic

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Sun, 6 May 2012 20:03:43 -0500, W. Kevin Kelley wrote: >Mark, > >You are correct -- there is now no option to put the additional lines of >explanation in the SYSLOG/OPERLOG. We reacted to what we heard from the ESP >customers, and to quote you perhaps they "overreacted". That is why I put t

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:09:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: >On 5/7/2012 7:54 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: >> On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:23:14 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >> >>> The problem is that before 64 AMODE you had 3 AMODE Choices - >>> 24-Only, 31-Only, or BOTH 24 and 31 (ie: Any). >> >> Where do

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/7/2012 9:29 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2012 08:09:45 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: On 5/7/2012 7:54 AM, Tom Marchant wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2012 23:23:14 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: The problem is that before 64 AMODE you had 3 AMODE Choices - 24-Only, 31-Only, or BOTH 24

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: "W. Kevin Kelley" To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/06/2012 06:04 PM Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List Mark, You are correct -- there is now no option to put the additional lines of e

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Mon, 7 May 2012 09:45:23 -0700, Skip Robinson wrote: >So far complaints on the new verbose behavior seem to have come from folks >who are not yet running R13. I am running it in 6 sandbox environments, but you are correct that it hasn't hit development nor production yet. I like what I se

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

>I asked for some of you ESP people who gave the initial feedback (or anyone >else) for your >real life numbers as to what you considered clutter. I >haven't seen any responses yet. See >the last paragraph of this post: Well, I agree with Mark. I think it's helpful, particularly as we have a l

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Mark, I understand your frustration, and I can only suggest that you do what is appropriate for your customer. If you wish to open a formal complaint about what you view as a loss of function, that is of course your decision. The manner of delivery and the timeliness with which the support was

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In <4fa7ede9.2060...@trainersfriend.com>, on 05/07/2012 at 09:44 AM, Steve Comstock said: >LOAD is a system service; it will set the bits to the AMODE of the >program issuing the service call. Are you sure? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? > > In <4fa7ede9.2060...@trainersfriend.com>, on 05/07/2012 >at 09:44 AM, Steve Comstock said: > > >LOAD is a system service; it will set the bits to the AMODE of the > >program issui

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

d-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subj

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:49:12 -0500, W. Kevin Kelley wrote: >Mark, > >I understand your frustration, and I can only suggest that you do what is >appropriate for your customer. If you wish to open a formal complaint about >what you view as a loss of function, that is of course your decision. > >T

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In , on 05/08/2012 at 12:05 PM, "McKown, John" said: >Sort of. ? >It does not set the AMODE of the currently executing program, true. Nor does it change the AMODE of the loaded program to that of the PSW. Don't confuse the value returned in R0 with the bits it sets in the CDE. >Actually it

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In <4fa956bd.6000...@trainersfriend.com>, on 05/08/2012 at 11:24 AM, Steve Comstock said: >But if the AMODE of the loaded module is any, then the returned >amode bits (in GPR0) are based on the AMODE of the invoker. True, but *not* the bits in the CDE. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, Sy

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Mark, Based on the feedback that we had received from the ESP customers, the comments that I have received here were a surprise; I had expected the comments to have gone in other directions. W. Kevin Kelley -- IBM POK Lab -- z/OS Core Technical Development -

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

In <3058465022590439.wa.wkkelleyoptonline@bama.ua.edu>, on 05/10/2012 at 08:28 PM, "W. Kevin Kelley" said: >Based on the feedback that we had received from the ESP customers, >the comments that I have received here were a surprise; I had >expected the comments to have gone in other directi

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

On 5/11/2012 8:47 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In<3058465022590439.wa.wkkelleyoptonline@bama.ua.edu>, on 05/10/2012 at 08:28 PM, "W. Kevin Kelley" said: Based on the feedback that we had received from the ESP customers, the comments that I have received here were a surprise; I h

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

My suspicion would be that it got enable to shoot somebody's particular bug and maybe didn't get switched off for the GA release. a message dated 5/11/2012 4:30:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, edja...@phoenixsoftware.com writes: getting the behavior I want so long as they are able to get t

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: Ed Finnell To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 05/11/2012 02:43 PM Subject: Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages? Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List My suspicion would be that it got enable to shoot somebo

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Yeah you'd think that this day and age some common options and corporate standards would kick in. f asid,verbose(on|off) would be useful to a number of components? In a message dated 5/11/2012 6:03:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jo.skip.robin...@sce.com writes: or off each one according

Re: Comments on DFSMS verbose messages?

Ed, We do it with a debug=y or n, n= no messages unless a failure occurs, y= yes gives you verbose Scott ford www.identityforge.com On May 12, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Ed Finnell wrote: > . -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /