On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:56:39 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote: >Batch Clist/REXX does not use panels. They are intended for >*interactive* TSO/ISPF dialogs. Anyone who writes Clist/REXX that >invokes panels in batch doesn't have a clue about what he/she/it is doing. > But IBM, with little clue, requires ISPPLIB to be allocated when running ISPF in batch. It might, rather be a courtesy for ISPSTART in batch to fail if ISPPLIB _is_ allocated, with a warning to the apparently clueless user.
Ok. This thread forked when: On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:13:49 -0500, Art Gutowski wrote: >On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:51:47 -0400, Dave Salt <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >If you're going to insert ISP@MSTR in front of ISR@PRIM, you'd do well to >notify and give your applications teams sufficient time to review and update >any batch ISPF jobs. ... And I questioned the usefulness of panels in batch. It has since deteriorated into name-calling. you started it, and Shmuel, in character, can't resist following. (Awaiting PKB.) And I haven't seen an example in SYS1.SAMPLIB (I haven't searched) or elsewhere of a batch ISPF job that usefully employs panels. Using JCL to start a terminal session doesn't count. And I'll confess that as a POC I have used a batch job to launch ISPGUI, using panels, largely cluelessly. I found it useless; important messages go to the batch job log, and it's impossible to reply. PMR? IBM says, enter the reply at the TSO terminal from which you started ISPF. No TSO terminal? How could that be!? But I consider that interactive as opposed to batch. In OS, everything starts with JCL; there must be another meaningful distinction between batch and interactive. --gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
