On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:41:33 -0600, John McKown wrote: > >... And IBM has now basically said that >TSO, but not ISPF or SDSF thankfully, is functionally stabilized. Which is >one reason why I have embraced using a z/OS UNIX shell so much. I _really_ >wish that ISPF could be "ported" to run as a CUA (using curses?) and / or a >X application on z/OS, likewise SDSF. What is particularly devastating to >me is that until just a few years ago, SDSF came with source code. I >remember looking at the terminal I/O code (native vs. ISPF). If I still had >it, I could probably fake up a curses interface. > Me, too.
How much of your SDSF wish could be satisfied by the Rexx (or other) API to SDSF driving Curses or X? As long as SDSF thinks in terms of screen images, it will never deal with SIGWINCH satisfactorily. And I wish for finer granularity of TSO functions. I've often wished I could do a TRANSMIT or RECEIVE without bringing up a TMP. BPXWDYN is a boon, allowing (however belatedly) ready access to DYNALLOC outside the TMP. Similar independent access to IDCAMS functions fronted by TSO would be valuable. I do run ISPF noninteractively from Rexx "address TSO" largely to use ISPF fine-grained PDS member serialization and to invoke APF-authorized commands from ssh. It would be better to have an interface layer to BPX1EXM to support allocation of data sets. What can you do with an authorized program with no data sets? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
