The TSO Pipelines in Batchpipes is 35 years old. My numerous attempts to encourage z/OS to let me upgrade it have failed. The difference with what have in CMS is a factor 3 in built-in programs and features. For anyone with current plumbing skills, using the TSO version is very frustrating. I'm sorry. Sir Rob the Plumber
Op za 6 sep 2025, 19:27 schreef Paul Gilmartin < 00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>: > On 9/5/25 03:54, Jonathan Scott wrote: > > ... > > CMS Pipelines is immensely powerful. Unix cannot compare. You can > write a basic Pipelines HTTPS web server in about 30 lines. I helped to > develop the VM Charlotte web browser, for which I rewrote the HTML > formatting in systems programming C, which all runs as a CMS Pipeline. > Within IBM, we also had TSO Pipelines, based on an earlier internal level > of the same code, and I made heavy use of it in our MVS jobs, as it greatly > simplified many tasks. IBM included a variant of that as BatchPipeWorks in > BatchPipes but then sold that off to a vendor. If z/OS had TSO Pipelines > at the same level as current CMS Pipelines, it would be a far more > programmer-friendly environment. > > ... > Is (current?) TSO Pipelines included as a component > of BatchPipes? If so, I can understand IBM's > reluctance to compete against an ISV/partner by > making TSO Pipelines a base component of z/OS. > > A question I have asked before, but never been able > to phrase clearly: is it possible for a pipeline > to connect to the "other side" of a ddname? Not > a driver which can read from or write to a ddname > allocated otherwise, such as by BPXWDYN, but so that > a Classic utility, such as ISPF SRCHFOR or IEBGENER > might read/write a pipeline? BatchPipes must have > this. What is the syntax? Example? > > -- > gil >
