Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:42:16 -0400
> From: t...@harminc.net
> Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
>
> On 4 October 2010 09:08, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> wrote:
>
> > Tell them to read the documentation for QEDIT, because it has worked
In , on
10/05/2010
at 02:42 PM, Tony Harminc said:
>Have you ever actually tried to use QEDIT and STOP/MODIFY on a TSO
>session?
Il va sans dire.
>It has indeed worked the same way for 4 decades, but that doesn't
>mean your application program can accept commands using it.
Are you a betting
On 4 October 2010 09:08, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
wrote:
> Tell them to read the documentation for QEDIT, because it has worked
> equally well for, e.g., batch jobs, TSO sessions, for 4 decades.
Have you ever actually tried to use QEDIT and STOP/MODIFY on a TSO
session? It has indeed worked the
ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
In <00f901cb6322$4df01a50$e9d04e...@org>, on 10/03/2010
at 10:42 AM, Charles Mills said:
>Thanks. Your advice goes to the core of what I
In , on 09/28/2010
at 10:26 PM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" said:
>It sounds like those Ops/Automation
>types are brain dead and do not understand what they are doing.
It sounds as if you don't know the same Ops/Automation developers that I know.
Bill Fairchild
Rocket Software
---
In , on 10/04/2010
at 07:06 AM, Tom Marchant said:
>It does unless you have an ESTAE exit and take appropriate action.
CANCEL precludes an orderly shutdown *EVEN IF* you have an ESTAE.
There are significant restrictions on what you can do for recovery
after a CANCEL.
--
Shmuel (Seymou
In <00f901cb6322$4df01a50$e9d04e...@org>, on 10/03/2010
at 10:42 AM, Charles Mills said:
>Thanks. Your advice goes to the core of what I was asking. Can you
>please suggest the other five options, in what you might guess might
>be their order of desirability?
Order of desirability would be in
--
Judging from some of the posts here I think that those of you in the
user sysprog community think we software vendors stay up at night
trying to think of ways to annoy you.
It doesn't matter whether it's incompete
In <005d01cb5f72$0646ba00$12d42e...@org>, on 09/28/2010
at 06:02 PM, Charles Mills said:
>Judging from some of the posts here I think that those of you in the
>user sysprog community think we software vendors stay up at night
>trying to think of ways to annoy you.
It doesn't matter whether i
In
,
on 09/29/2010
at 05:15 PM, Peter Nuttall said:
>I guess, in their defence they never intended/suggested for the IP
>listeners to work as Started Tasks,
Tell them to read the documentation for QEDIT, because it has worked
equally well for, e.g., batch jobs, TSO sessions, for 4 decades.
In , on 09/28/2010
at 10:26 PM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" said:
>Shutting down a Started Task can be done in the way other STCs are
>controlled.
Not if it is programmed ineptly.
>You can issue a WTOR which allows the request to shut
>down to be sent
Please don't; that approach is so 1960's.
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:35:03 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>CANCEL precludes an orderly shutdown.
It does unless you have an ESTAE exit and take appropriate action.
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
>Also, any system auto-operations product start-up script
That's why (imo) it's better to just list requirements.
Also, if you start listing methods, what happens if you haven't tested the
product, or the product changes?
Tend to your own knitting, and let the customer wear it.
-
I'm a SuperHe
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:42:09 -070
ober 03, 2010 7:52 AM
:>To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
:>Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
:>In <013801cb5dc8$703d9ec0$50b8dc...@org>, on 09/26/2010
:> at 03:16 PM, Charles Mills said:
:>>I'm writing documentation for a product that a customer would
:>>normally run aut
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 7:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
In <013801cb5dc8$703d9ec0$50b8dc...@org>, on 09/26/2010
at 03:16 PM, Charles Mills
In <013801cb5dc8$703d9ec0$50b8dc...@org>, on 09/26/2010
at 03:16 PM, Charles Mills said:
>I'm writing documentation for a product that a customer would
>normally run automatically as an STC at every IPL. What do I say in
>the manual about where to place the START command?
"The foo address sp
In , on 09/27/2010
at 02:42 PM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" said:
>That sounds useful but unless my memory is inaccurate an STC must be
>a single step
There was a time when the PPT was not honored if the proc wasn't
single step, but most started tasks these days don't require PPT
entries, so even
In
<397724969-1285617146-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-16760008...@bda497.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>,
on 09/27/2010
at 07:53 PM, Ted MacNEIL said:
>PS: it's a started task (or Started Task). STC stands for Started
>Task Control -- the sub-system.
Hypocrite.
>Calling it an STC is ina
In , on 09/30/2010
at 04:13 PM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" said:
>The assumption of my comment was the program was written to use STOP
> or MODIFY to signal the task to terminate.
That was a bizarre assumption to make, given the text of
.
> was to the effect that it was against the Ops/Automation
On 10/1/2010 5:03 AM, Chase, John wrote:
Meanwhile, NetView still hangs a WTOR on the console :-(
Actually, that's an optional behavior in Netview. Of course, the default--chosen
for maximum upward compatibility--is exactly what you don't want.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software Interna
John
You may be right about NetView Access - which has only the most tenuous
connection with the "pukka" NetView by the way - as close as Raleigh, NC,
and Rome, Italy - just check the "Help Us Help You!" sections in appropriate
manuals.
However, I hope you checked the manuals for the latest re
John
> Meanwhile, NetView still hangs a WTOR on the console.
I went back as far as I could in the NetView bookshelves[1] in order to
confirm what I seemed to remember from the days when I used to run a
NetView on all my systems that there was no outstanding "reply" messing up
the console. I fo
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:11 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>At 10:04 -0500 on 09/29/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: Really
>dumb IPL question:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:29 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>>Shutting down a Started Task can be
"Chase, John" wrote in message
news:...
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP -
SPLXM
> >
> > "Chase, John" wrote in message
> >
>
news: > m>...
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of C
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
>
> "Chase, John" wrote in message
>
news: m>...
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Chris Mason
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > > ... or you can
"Chase, John" wrote in message
news:...
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Chris Mason
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > > ... or you can just use the Modify (F) or STOP (P) command.
> >
> > That "just" is suspicious. The program needs to support the
> MODI
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Chris Mason
>
> Robert
>
> > ... or you can just use the Modify (F) or STOP (P) command.
>
> That "just" is suspicious. The program needs to support the
MODIFY/STOP
> interface and not all programs do. It took IMS "f
Bruce
> ...there is a very simple MVS command that ALL products should be able to
accept (intercept) .. that is STOP (P).
The rub[1] is in the "should". Indeed, it is just about the simplest MVS
command it is possible to devise. However there is still a need to support it
within the program it
At 14:14 -0500 on 09/30/2010, Chris Mason wrote about Re: Really dumb
IPL question:
Robert
... or you can just use the Modify (F) or STOP (P) command.
That "just" is suspicious. The program needs to support the MODIFY/STOP
interface and not all programs do.
Since I mentione
At 10:04 -0500 on 09/29/2010, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: Really
dumb IPL question:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:29 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
Shutting down a Started Task can be done in the way other STCs are
controlled. ... you can just use the Modify (F) or STOP (P)
command . If
rograms using
the VTAM API. It's not at all difficult.
Chris Mason
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:29 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
>At 16:03 +0200 on 09/28/2010, Peter Nuttall wrote about Re: Really
>dumb IPL question:
>
>>Setting this up as a
>>started task and then
highly advised. The functionality of these commands is distinctly
different.
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:29 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg
wrote:
>At 16:03 +0200 on 09/28/2010, Peter Nuttall wrote about Re: Really
>dumb IPL question:
>
>>Setting this up as a
>>started task and t
it.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:43:49 -0500, McKown, John
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg
>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:43 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.e
Tasks,
that was for our 'ease of use' Nevertheless, the code should have
been present.
"Tom Marchant"
Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List"
29/09/2010 05:04 PM
Please respond to
"IBM Mainframe Discussion List"
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:26:29 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>Shutting down a Started Task can be done in the way other STCs are
>controlled. ... you can just use the Modify (F) or STOP (P)
>command . If MODIFY is good enough for TCP, TSO, etc, it should be
>good enough for your RYO STC. It so
nesday, September 29, 2010 12:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
"Robert A. Rosenberg" wrote in message
news:...
> At 16:03 +0200 on 09/28/2010, Peter Nuttall wrote about Re: Really
> dumb IPL question:
>
> >Setting this up as a
> >
"Robert A. Rosenberg" wrote in message
news:...
> At 16:03 +0200 on 09/28/2010, Peter Nuttall wrote about Re: Really
> dumb IPL question:
>
> >Setting this up as a
> >started task and then explaining to Ops/Automation that the only way
to
> >stop it was t
At 16:03 +0200 on 09/28/2010, Peter Nuttall wrote about Re: Really
dumb IPL question:
Setting this up as a
started task and then explaining to Ops/Automation that the only way to
stop it was to Cancel the Started task was not fun (against their
operational procedures)
Shutting down a
At 18:02 -0700 on 09/28/2010, Charles Mills wrote about Re: Really
dumb IPL question:
While I'm on a rant here you in the sysprog community should keep in
mind that you are not the entire audience for our products. We don't
typically sell to the guy or gal who maintains SYS1.PARM
se keep in mind that we may have to put
other things in there too.
Thanks again,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Linda Mooney
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really d
.
Thanks,
Linda Mooney
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Mills"
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:19:36 AM
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
Thanks for your kind words. It's easy to feel beat-up here no matter what
you
Discussion List"
28/09/2010 03:51 PM
Please respond to
"IBM Mainframe Discussion List"
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: Really dumb IPL question
Thanks, Barbara. I admit I had given no thought (so far) to this issue.
I'm
going to start a new thread on thi
2010 03:51 PM
Please respond to
"IBM Mainframe Discussion List"
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Re: Really dumb IPL question
Thanks, Barbara. I admit I had given no thought (so far) to this issue.
I'm
going to start a new thread on this topic.
Charles
-Origin
: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
>Since you say it can handle waiting for TCPIP on it's own, what's the
>diff? If I want it during limited function "system checkout time" I'd
>use COMMNDxx. Otherwise the automation.
To reiterate: The di
>Since you say it can handle waiting for TCPIP on it's own, what's the
>diff? If I want it during limited function "system checkout time" I'd
>use COMMNDxx. Otherwise the automation.
To reiterate: The difference is shutdown. If TCPIP services are needed for
successful shutdown, then the product M
At 00:55 -0500 on 09/27/2010, Brian Westerman wrote about Re: Really
dumb IPL question:
It's more work to tell them multiple places that it can go, but it leaves it
up to the site to decide what works best for them. We even have a small
derivative of one of our products (SyzCMD/z) that c
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:43 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
>
> At 00:55 -0500 on 09/
>That sounds useful but unless my memory is inaccurate an STC must be a single
>step
I believe your memory is inaccurate.
TSO must be a single step, or you get an abend - S622, iirc.
But, we've had multi-step CICS Regions as started tasks.
Clean-up; CICS; recovery.
PS: it's a started task (or
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:53:02 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>Calling it an STC is inaccurate, and akin to calling a job a JCL, or an
EXEC a REXX.
>-
Common usage, inaccurate or not. People, manuals / doc all use the
terms STC and "started task" synonymously. "Please define this STC
to RACF" et
d...@lists.duda.com (David Andrews) writes:
> Perhaps TCPIP autolog would do the trick as well? Does your product run
> all the time?
I had originally created the *autolog* command for automated
benchmarking ... near the end of the system boot/ipl process, it would
autolog a generic id (*autolog1
>Why are you so opposed to my mentioning some recommended approaches?
It's a matter what to do vs how to do it.
The recommendations tend to become instructions, and as SYSPROGs 'dumb down'
inconsistent implementations abound.
Just tell me what is needed, first.
If you think your recommendations
Perfect. Great suggestion. Thanks.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
David Andrews
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 10:01
.edu] On
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
>
> Ted, I've got a lot of successful third-party mainframe product
> management
> experience.
>
> I'm sure every &
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 10:01 -0400, Charles Mills wrote:
> TCP/IP is a prerequisite but the product can wait for TCP/IP, so it makes
> sense to start it after starting TCP/IP but it does not matter if TCP/IP is
> not fully initialized.
Perhaps TCPIP autolog would do the trick as well? Does your pr
they are free
to do it any way that works for them. Why are you so opposed to my
mentioning some recommended approaches?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:12 AM
To: IBM
>So humor me, I'm not much of an operations person as you can tell, where would
>that be?
>One alternative is "your console automation system" but what are the
>recommended vanilla IBM alternatives?
>- A $VS command in the JESx initialization data set.
>- Where else?
None of those!
Just tell u
List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Brian Westerman
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dumb IPL question
We have the same sort of issue with our product documentation. We have
found though that you really shouldn't tell th
I'd probably just recommend that they run the start command after either
TCPIP or TSO. In our automation we have a number of tasks similar to
this one that we start after TCPIP (if it depends on TCPIP) or TSO.
C. Todd Burrell
PMP, MCSE 2003:Security
Security+, Network+
ITIL V3 Foundations
CSC
We have the same sort of issue with our product documentation. We have
found though that you really shouldn't tell they site where to put it.
Instead, we point out where they CAN put it to have it start up at the
correct time.
It's more work to tell them multiple places that it can go, but it
>I agree... but in my experience we have as many or more customers who
>balk at "put the following command in xxx". Before we updated our doc
>some years ago, we got a number of complaints that we as a vendor
>obviously didn't understand how the Real World works, we must be
>developers working in a
On 26 September 2010 19:10, Charles Mills wrote:
> In my experience some customers will balk if as vendors we just say "take
> the necessary steps to have the following happen." We get customers going
> "how do we do that?"
I agree... but in my experience we have as many or more customers who
ba
At 16:10 -0700 on 09/26/2010, Charles Mills wrote about Re: Really
dumb IPL question:
Would a $VS command in the JESx init deck be a good place to put a start
command for something that probably wants to come up after JES2 and TCP/IP?
What's the formal name for the JESx init deck? Can
>I would prefer to say "put a start command in __ or wherever your shop
>usually puts start commands that are to execute after blah and blah are up.
You are still missing the point!
>You may use a console automation package to start FOO if your shop normally
>starts started tasks in this wa
n what
the JES2 manual calls the "initialization data set"?
Thanks again,
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 3:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Really dum
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:16:15 -0700 Charles Mills wrote:
:>I'm writing documentation for a product that a customer would normally run
:>automatically as an STC at every IPL. What do I say in the manual about
:>where to place the START command? Where would this command go? It probably
:>wants to be
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 15:16 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
> Hey, I'm a coder, not a sysprog.
>
> I'm writing documentation for a product that a customer would normally run
> automatically as an STC at every IPL. What do I say in the manual about
> where to place the START command? Where would this c
> Hey, I'm a coder, not a sysprog.
>
> I'm writing documentation for a product that a customer would normally
> run
> automatically as an STC at every IPL. What do I say in the manual about
> where to place the START command? Where would this command go? It
> probably
> wants to be run fairly late
68 matches
Mail list logo
