ion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> 1. IEFYS is a really o
gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 3:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
Our SMF exits still use IEFYS to write messages to the job output stream. If
there were s
behalf of
David Spiegel
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 9:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
1. If nobody was using IEFYS, how else would the flower box be printed?
On 2018-11-24 14:48, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> 1. IEFYS is a really old interf
786857360946751&sdata=GKK3hqgt4uaepi6nw9h80ESrAaOCWmwnBWaw3y3cs%2BA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Steff Gladstone
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
>
-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Looking for an ap
gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Steff Gladstone
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:31:08 -0500, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>"Can dynamically allocate" is not the same as to "can use BPXWDYN". I
>would guess that you cannot use BPXWDYN except from within the jobstep
>program task tree. Why did you not post the return information from your
>BPXWDYN? That might
I am abending on S0C4 because getmained areas are automatically being
freed at end of step, before IEFACTRT gets control. It is not clear to me
if SUBPOOL alone can solve the problem. Do I need to specify
TCBADDR=TCBJSTCB on the STORAGE macro so that the "input TCB" is the
job-step TCB? What c
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:53:11 +0200, Steff Gladstone wrote:
>Three questions regarding IEFACTRT:
>
>1. Where is use of IEFYS for writing messages to the JOBLOG documented?
>The example given in the documentation for IEFACTRT is incomplete. Google
>doesn't seem to locate the doc as well.
>
>2. I am
recht
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 6:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
>
> Peter Relson wrote:
>
> >When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits
> that we thought were most likely to b
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
Peter Relson wrote:
>When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits that
>we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And I'd hope
>that new exits use it.
T
Peter Relson wrote:
>When the facility was developed, we took a stab at which existing exits that
>we thought were most likely to be of help to the most customers. And I'd hope
>that new exits use it.
That was one of the best stabs I got from Big Blue. It saved me an unneeded IPL
when one of m
Otherwise you can hook the standard LOAD/LINK/ATTACH SVCs.
Please do not do that. There is a long history of applications getting
this wrong.
It is unfortunate that hooking of any SVC was ever viewed as acceptable
practice.
But in the absence of suitable exits, it can be understandable.
z/OS
assuming we are careful to return R15=0 in our exit routines and not
change
anything in the passed parameters, could that still affect or override in
any way the results of the default or system exit routines already in
effect for those exit points?
No, it could not.
(Now why certain IBM com
On 4 October 2018 at 12:56, Charles Mills wrote:
> The dynamic exits facility does a pretty much perfect job of isolating
> various exit routines one from another.
I agree with Charles - it's a great facility with about all the power
and convenience one could ask for. (Now why certain IBM compon
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for an appropriate system exit
After a respite of several months this topic has gotten hot again for us.
We believe that using the IEFUSI and IEFACTRT exits answer our need to gain
control at job-step initialization and again at job-step termination.
My
After a respite of several months this topic has gotten hot again for us.
We believe that using the IEFUSI and IEFACTRT exits answer our need to gain
control at job-step initialization and again at job-step termination.
My question is: if we use the dynamic exits facility, that is, the console
c
Steff Gladstone wrote:
>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during program
>initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs).
What checks?
>We would like to implement this in a manner transpar
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:13:47 +0200, Steff Gladstone wrote:
>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during program
>initialization and duration ...
>
>We are looking at initialization routines like CEEBINT.
Can you give an example or two?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:13:47 +0200 Steff Gladstone
wrote:
:>In our installation we would like to implement certain checks and document
:>certain run-time characteristics at the beginning and during program
:>initialization and duration (chiefly Cobol programs). W
20 matches
Mail list logo
