They both have their +s and -s, The logging for IMS is very good. Easy to use in recovery. I thought that CICS was quicker and also had a pretty good log system. Some of it depends upon the application you are using. I'm a CICS bigot but, I'm also an IMS DBA. It's you pick and how experienced your staff is. BTW, calls in cics are frowned upon, the last time I checked. HTH, Fred
________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Roberts, John J Sent: Wed 2/15/2012 6:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CICS vs IMS >>We are a CICS shop with IMS DB (DBCTL), but I've been curious for a while >>about the differences between how CICS works >>and how IMS TM works. I >>couldn't find anything on the web. Anyone have a link to a good reference? Try Google for "IMS DC". The IMS Transaction Manager used to be called IMS/DC (for Data Communication). It has been a long time since I touched it, but my recollection is that it was a cleaner implementation within the Operating System. It used CALL level API's (no EXEC IMS precompiler) and exploited all the OS capabilities for multitasking and multiprocessing. CICS on the other hand tried to isolate apps from the OS, becoming its own mini-OS within a single OS address space. This was an advantage for CICS back in the 70's. But I suspect the table has turned under z/OS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
