In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/14/2007
at 09:16 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Shmuel will advise you not to trust it;
No, Shmuel will advise him not to believe anything that you attribute
to me without googling to see whether I actually wrote it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:56:44 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/14/2007
at 09:16 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
Shmuel will advise you not to trust it;
No, Shmuel will advise him not to believe anything that you attribute
to me without googling to see whether I
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/13/2007
at 11:35 AM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
(Shmuel needn't reiterate his distrust of patch.)
Shmuel will, however, reiterate his dislike of incorrect attributions.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06/14/2007
at 02:50 AM, Bruce Hewson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
One thing you never do with IEPUPDTE input or managed datasets is
access them with any editor that modifies line numbers.
Perhaps Gil doesn't, or you don't; I do. Not all use of IEBUPDTE is
via SMP/E.
--
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:18:04 -0500, Kenneth E Tomiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:55:38 -0500, Ed Gould
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I heard it, Corporate Executives, not system programmers, told IBM they
needed the software installation simplified. ServerPac is the answer. It
On Jun 15, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Mark H. Young wrote:
---SNIP-
I think the *operative* words here are: Corporate Executives
They just want systems programmers to make *LESS* money, so their
companies can make bigger profits and
Hello Gil,
One thing you never do with IEPUPDTE input or managed datasets is access
them with any editor that modifies line numbers.
Even though the source or macro member has line numbers, you can only EDIT
them in UNNUM mode.
I also recommend that you only access such data using a screen
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 02:50 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote:
++SRCUPD and ++MACUPD via IEPUPDTE is only usable when the original data
is supplied with line numbers that are guaranteed never to be changed.
Trusting soul Bruce ???.
I wouldn't trust any vendor that far - I always refit usermods using
, IEBUPDTE, and SuperC (was: CA-1 install - user
exits?)
...snip...
++SRCUPD and ++MACUPD via IEPUPDTE is only usable when the original data
is supplied with line numbers that are guaranteed never to be changed.
Regards
Bruce Hewson
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:37:11 -0500, Russell Witt wrote:
And should these user-exits be SMP controlled to begin with?
YES
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
I remember one of the first projects I worked on as a systems
programmer was updating JES2 with a level set Apar. This was back
around 1979, using SMP Release 3. The JES2 updates were one big
IEBUPDTE stream. I never realized that SPF did an automatic renumber
of the data. Since JES
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:37:11 -0500, Russell Witt wrote:
You bring up many of the limitations of IEBUPDTE, which leads to another
option. Stop using IEBUPDTE and go to full ++SRC for user exits. This means
the sample is the entire exit with comment blocks were we suggest you place
your user-code.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:50:00 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote:
One thing you never do with IEPUPDTE input or managed datasets is access
them with any editor that modifies line numbers.
ISPF's numbering facilities can be useful in providing valid
numbers for inserted lines.
Although it can be done,
In my experience, fewer new sysprogs know about IEBUPDTE because they
have no need to run it on their own. Serverpac creates jobs that many newer
people just submit and if they get the desired return code have no idea what
they ran because they never scroll through the job. So even if Serverpac
On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote:
In my experience, fewer new sysprogs know about IEBUPDTE because they
have no need to run it on their own. Serverpac creates jobs that
many newer
people just submit and if they get the desired return code have no
idea what
they ran
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:55:38 -0500, Ed Gould
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am mixed (as I have said in
the past about serverpac) about servpacs on one hand they do the job
but at the other its a dumbing down of the sysprog, IMO. I expect to
hear a lot of noise because I am criticizing IBM again
On Jun 14, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote:
As I heard it, Corporate Executives, not system programmers, told
IBM they
needed the software installation simplified. ServerPac is the
answer. It is
dumbing down the field. You did mention looking at the apply, well
here I am
again
On Jun 14, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:13:26 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
Of course there are many ways to do this my suggestion is a common
sense one I believe, but there are others. I personally find it hard
to believe that a typical sysprog would not know about
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:03:43 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
I was suggesting such context lines as guidance not so much for
the programmer as for the (ISPF) editor in creating valid sequence
numbers in the IEBUPDTE command file. Likewise, the provider
should make the sequence numbers sparse in the
Subject: Re: SMP/E, IEBUPDTE, and SuperC (was: CA-1 install - user exits?)
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:37:11 -0500, Russell Witt wrote:
You bring up many of the limitations of IEBUPDTE, which leads to another
option. Stop using IEBUPDTE and go to full ++SRC for user exits. This means
the sample
Hi Folks,
I am reading the digest, so this post will contain responses to various posts.
Shane, correct, always validate before assuming. Which is why guaranteed
was quoted. :-)
Tom, yep, my error, NUM OFF not UNNUM.
Russell, I don't believe that I said don't use IEBUPDTE, just that there
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:55:29 -0500, Russell Witt wrote:
The entire question of how well should we document IBM utilities and
procedures was discussed just today regarding GDG's. We have some utilities
(such as TMSCOPY to backup the TMC) were we recommend creating GDG's to keep
some number of
Gil,
Its an idea but a suggestion might be in order here. Wouldn't it be a
little clearer if comments were inserted (perhaps in an asterisks in
a box format saying inset code below this box.
Of course there are many ways to do this my suggestion is a common
sense one I believe, but there
23 matches
Mail list logo
