I think the intent was to protect from cancel by mistake. I believe that cancel is the way they stop the stc as well. This is why i proposed to have a special record read from storage to stop the stc.
Best, ITschak ITschak Mugzach Z/OS, ISV Products and Application Security & Risk Assessments Professional On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Rob Schramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Marking it non cancellable will prevent the normal cancel. But will not > stop the force arm. > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016, 3:26 PM Andy Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:55:16 -0800, Charles Mills <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >It can be done but it is not easy. You don't actually need the front end > > (I think -- more familiar with C than COBOL). But it is not "supported." > > S122's are "unrecoverable." > > > > > > > I have no idea about either C or Cobol, but you can "intercept" x22 > abends > > using TERM=YES on ESTAE - the ESTAE routine gets control but is not > allowed > > to retry. > > > > Since SP231 is being used, the code is presumably running authorised and > > could thus also make use of RESMGR to handle task and also address space > > termination. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > -- > > Rob Schramm > The Art of Mainframe, Inc > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
