In <[email protected]>, on 06/02/2015
at 07:49 AM, Joel Ewing <[email protected]> said:
>That may well be, but according to IBM and TSO documentation the
>behavior of IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B is by design slightly different,
How is that relevant to the claims about TCB structure?
>and their definition of "directly" in this context includes TSO
>commands executed within a CLIST that is directly invoked under
>the TMP.
Unless the implementation of EXEC has changed radically, any reaonable
definition of directly would have to include commands from a CLIST. If
the TMP does a GETLINE or PUTGET, builds a CPPL and attaches the task,
how much more direct can it get? It's the same code path as the
command from the terminal.
>but if you avoid executing the commands directly under the TMP
Water is wet.
>and IKJEFT1A/IKJEFT1B appear to be designed to regard any non-zero
>return code they see as fatal.
That's specialized behavior and by no means the normal batch TSO. If
you don't know why youi're using IKJEFT1[AB] then you probably
shouldn't be using them.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
