Re: System Rexx - Console questions

Scott, The message is a result of using say. Axrwro does not print the msg, just the required text. ITschak בתאריך 10 ביונ 2017 00:23,‏ "scott Ford" כתב: Tony, I think ITschak is saying is it possible to use AXRWTO instead of what your doing and it would not that issue. Scott On Thu, Jun 8,

changing batch job to use SSL

Dear Listers I have a pure COBOL batch job that uses socket programming (EZASOCKET) to fetch some sensitive data from an external server. I would like to change this IP connection between Mainframe (Client) and External server (Specialized Application Server that does support SSL/TLS) to be sec

Re: Does the JES2 ESTBYTE parm limit STC or just batch output?

I reran the job I used earlier, this time with TIME=NOLIMIT. Still got S722. This is with system wide ESTLINE parm, not a jobclass value. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐

Re: Java on z/OS?

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:02:25 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >What was the first release that allowed BPXBATCH to (finally) write to SYSOUT? > I wasn't > aware of it, but indeed it does now work (z/OS 2.2)! > >Frank z/OS 1.8 or z/OS 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 with the fix for APAR OA11699 allowed MVS files

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

One of my very first oh dark thirty wake up calls. I had tested thoroughly using a public test library. All good. Copied the module carefully to the production counterpart. Went home. Boom. The lessons you learn earliest are the ones you remember best. ;-) . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern Califo

Re: System Rexx - Console questions

Tony, I think ITschak is saying is it possible to use AXRWTO instead of what your doing and it would not that issue. Scott On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Tony Harminc wrote: > Thanks, but I don't see how this relates to my questions. > > Tony H. > > On 8 June 2017 at 02:59, IronSphere by Sec

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Yup, I'm sure you are right. Lying to the binder didn't (obviously) matter when the program object was in a non-APF-authorized library, but it did matter when it was in an authorized library for the reasons discussed below. In any event, lying to the binder is a terrible practice, and I'll corre

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:10:28 -0400, Don Poitras wrote: >I don't see what 0C4 is telling you vis-a-vis APF authorization. I think it's >more likely that you've told the binder that the program is RENT and it's >not. If you have REFRPROT set in your PROGxx parmlib member, then it's going >to get load

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

I think you need RENT on your PL/1 compile because otherwise there is no guaranteed the generated code will be re-entrant. General rule is if RENT on bind/LinkedIn then you must have RENT on high level language compile. Dan On Jun 9, 2017, 16:26 -0400, Leonardo Vaz , wrote: > Ow, I missed the

Re: Does the JES2 ESTBYTE parm limit STC or just batch output?

In light of our spool problems, we have undertaken to set a limit. Trying to make everyone put output limits in their jobs would be out of the question. So we dug into TFM and found system wide ESTLNCT. There are related parms for byte count and page count, but we went with lines for simplicity.

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Ow, I missed the source, sorry. Ok, so I believe a program loaded from an authorized library, even if it's not AC=1, will be loaded by contents supervisor with KEY=0 if it's reentrant, but with KEY=8 if it's non-reentrant, so that's why you got the S0C4 originally. Regards, Leo -Original M

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Oh duh - re-reading Don's note and this isn't even a puzzle any more. Thanks again, Don and others. Rich Way -Original Message- From: Way, Richard Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: RE: APF authorization and AC(00) Problem solved, per the suggesti

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

RENT modules are loaded into protected storage only when from an authorized library. N.B> not "if authorized", not if "AC=1". Exactly as stated. Now you know everything :-) sas On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Way, Richard wrote: > Problem solved, per the suggestions below!! > > In particular

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Problem solved, per the suggestions below!! In particular, the program is apparently NOT reentrant, yet the binder was being told it was. For some reason, this doesn't seem to matter (in this case) when the library isn't APF-autorized, yet results in a S0C4 when it is. That part is still a bi

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

The source code is actually below - it's just a "hello world". But agreed I need to dig into the S0C4. The APF issue wasn't the result of an attempt to debug it, but was the ONLY difference between the version that worked and the version that didn't - and I confirmed that by revoking and reinsta

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Right, without the source code we can only guess, but the program might be issuing a CSVQUERY to verify its state and relying on ",OUTATTR2=" "Authorized library" bit to try and do something it wouldn't do if that bit was off, maybe they forgot to check the "Authorized program" bit as well. Tha

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

I don't see what 0C4 is telling you vis-a-vis APF authorization. I think it's more likely that you've told the binder that the program is RENT and it's not. If you have REFRPROT set in your PROGxx parmlib member, then it's going to get loaded into read-only storage and when it tries to modify itsel

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

Thanks, but it's a simple //XYZ EXEC PGM=ZPXPLIA So, yeah, it's a jobstep task. And while I can see how NOT having authorization might cause a problem (specifically, an S047), I don't see why *having* authorization would cause a problem... Rich Way -Original Message- From: IBM Mainfra

Re: APF authorization and AC(00)

As far as I understand, AC=0 would only prevent authorization of the JSCB if it is the program being attached as a jobstep task, if this program is being called by an already-existing authorized task, it would run authorized. The question is: How is control passed to program ZPXPLIA? Regards, L

APF authorization and AC(00)

Simple question, but the behavior I am seeing flies in the face of what I *thought* I knew about APF authorization. The crux of it is - I have a program object that is linked AC(00). When this program is executed out of an APF-authorized library, it S0C4s. When I revoke the authorization on th

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

I'm sure your memory better than mine, last time I saw our IBM CE/SE's run OLTEP was when I worked for Sears in Philly back in the 80's - thinking 370/158 days thru 3033 maybe 3081 ") Carmen - Original Message - From: "John Eells" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Friday, June

Re: Does the JES2 ESTBYTE parm limit STC or just batch output?

Yes, Jesse, it was exactly this excerpt you quote which inspired my post. It is very vague wrt ESTBYTE, whether it applies just to batch and APPC or also STCs. Are the internal JES2 limits it cites set just for TSO XMITs or do they apply also to STCs in lieu of the ESTBYTE parm. If so, it would

Re: Java on z/OS?

What was the first release that allowed BPXBATCH to (finally) write to SYSOUT? I wasn't aware of it, but indeed it does now work (z/OS 2.2)! Frank From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Ken Smith Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LIS

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Carmen Vitullo wrote: yep ! OLTEP I believe HAD to run V=R - talk about way back :) I seem to recall, though I have not run it in a Long Time, that OLTEP itself was happy with V=V, but that some of the OLTs (online tests) required V=R, including one or more of the 3420 OLTs. I don't plan to

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

We have this line in PARMLIB IEASYSxx: REAL=0, /* 03/04/11 JOR PER HEALTH CHECKER */ Indicates that up until 2011, we were setting some V=R; '100' as far as I can tell from old member versions. As I said previously, we used some V=R to facilitate configuring storage off

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

yep ! OLTEP I believe HAD to run V=R - talk about way back :) Carmen - Original Message - From: "Steve Thompson" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 12:07:00 PM Subject: Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ? I have forgotten the name of it, but IBM ha

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

I have forgotten the name of it, but IBM had a utility for checking terminals (I think that was it), and it ran V=R. I just can't remember the name of it anymore -- probably because I haven't heard of it being used for over 20 years now. And just before I hit SEND, someone posts about OLTEP. T

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

So much for a 30yr old memory. :-) Thanks Greg! Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Greg Dyck Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:56 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

On 6/9/2017 11:47 AM, Richards, Robert B. wrote: I seem to remember that V=R was used with MVS/XA running under VM/XA SF and you could bounce VM/XA SF and the guest would stay up. That was a *VM* V=R user, not a MVS V=R address space. Regards, Greg ---

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Over 20 years ago for me. Never looked back. Greg Dyck June 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM It has been 30 years since I saw a program that actually required V=R to run successfully, and that was only for specific OLTEP test programs that dynamically modified CCW chains. beli

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

I seem to remember that V=R was used with MVS/XA running under VM/XA SF and you could bounce VM/XA SF and the guest would stay up. Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Greg Dyck Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:43 PM To

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

On 6/8/2017 10:44 AM, John McKown wrote: This still seems to be supported in z/OS 2.2. Does anyone need to run a program V=R in today's world? I'm just curious because this support seems to be a "waste" of protect keys 10 through 15. Of course, if those keys were "freed up", what could they be us

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Allan Staller wrote: >IEFUSI could, but is it worth the work? Thanks. No, it is not the work and risks worth! Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send e

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

The only reason I can think of for V=R is for an old program that builds its own channel programs and doesn't translate the addresses. That would have to be a very old program. sas On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Allan Staller wrote: > Ripped it out of my last shop. The SMF30 has a bit(?) that

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

IEFUSI could, but is it worth the work? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 9:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ? Allan S

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Allan Staller wrote: >Ripped it out of my last shop. The SMF30 has a bit(?) that indicates V=R was >used. That is SMF30SFL, 'Storage Flag' in Storage and Paging Section, V=R is indicated by bit 0. >Spun 90 days worth of type 30's to prove it was not in use and then removed >the spec. Ca

Override AUTOREPLY on a 'per job' basis

To list,   Is there a way to override the AUTOREPLY of WTORs on a 'per job' basis. I have to do a cold starton IMS but the autoreply issues the /NRE response to the IMS READY message. I know that there is a SETAUTOR OFF command which turns it off completely. Thks, Bill J. ---

Re: Does the JES2 ESTBYTE parm limit STC or just batch output?

Aside from the ESTBYTE change, ensure the applicable JES2 JOBCLASS definitions specifications do not specify TIME=1440. If TIME=1440 is specified at any point, I believe the whole thing will fail. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] O

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Ripped it out of my last shop. The SMF30 has a bit(?) that indicates V=R was used. Spun 90 days worth of type 30's to prove it was not in use and then removed the spec. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson S

Re: Rexx SORT (was: ... Job Scheduler ... )

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:52:32 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: >TSO is dead TSO is dead, Long live TSO! -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the

Re: Rexx SORT

W dniu 2017-06-09 o 14:54, John McKown pisze: [...] ​If the ISPF people would port their code to be usable from an UNIX shell prompt, I'd have _no_ use for TSO again. What I vaguely envision is having ISPF use "curses" for a character user interface. The second phase would be to extend ISPF to us

Re: Rexx SORT (was: ... Job Scheduler ... )

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Edward Gould wrote: > ​ > > > Good question. One that has been asked many times. I have the impression > IBM is being mysterious here. We are pretty sure that there is no > development going on for current TSO and IBM is tight lipped on any > possible successor (i

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

Radoslaw Skorupka wrote: >John McKown pisze: >> This still seems to be supported in z/OS 2.2. Does anyone need to run a >> program V=R in today's world? I'm just curious because this support seems to >> be a "waste" of protect keys 10 through 15. Of course, if those keys were >> "freed up", wha

Re: curious: Anybody still use ADDRSPC=REAL ?

W dniu 2017-06-08 o 17:45, John McKown pisze: This still seems to be supported in z/OS 2.2. Does anyone need to run a program V=R in today's world? I'm just curious because this support seems to be a "waste" of protect keys 10 through 15. Of course, if those keys were "freed up", what could they