A huge thank you to IBM UK and Roger Fowler for organising and hosting the meeting.
Apologies: Simon Hutchings(Nationwide)
1. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising.
No matters arising.
2. GUIDE Business
Vacant Posts: None at this time
Future meeting and conference topics discussed, if any of the membership has a topic or specific subject that they would like to see covered in future meetings and/or the annual conference please let us know.
A number of sessions have been suggested for the Annual Conference, some of them have been detailed on the Large Systems Website. Can you please review the subjects and let Mark or Simon know which ones you would prefer.
LSWG Meetings:
Next Meeting:
3. Announcements
Dates for IBM Technically Speaking discussed, several attendees asked why IBM no longer seem to send email notification of these events, RF to investigate.
4. Requirements
4.1 First requirement
Allow Language Environment run-time options to be specified dynamically for IMS programs running in batch (DLI, DBB and BMP types) without requiring recompilation or binding/linking of problem programs. A suggested way to achieve this is by recognizing options specified through the CEEOPTS DD statement, which are currently ignored for batch programs running under IMS.
Justification:
There is currently no way to dynamically specify run-time options for IMS batch programs. All the methods available require user programs to be re-linked with their own LE CEEUOPT module, or (for some languages ) recompiled with the options added in the program source. This is not sufficiently flexible. Examples where flexibility in setting options is required are storage reporting and tuning, and use of Debug Tool remote debugging where a dynamically assigned terminal id is required in the options.
Background:
We have never had a way to feed LE options into IMS batch programs, which is a royal PITA. We can't do it using the JCL PARM string because IMS hijacks it for its own purposes. When CEEOPTS was introduced in z/OS 1.7 we had high hopes that it would solve the problem, but when we tried it we found it didn't work. IBM's response was to change the LE doc to add the fact that it didn't work with IMS. I'm not sure whether the problem lies with LE or IMS, but it's probably both, so I am also pursuing this with the IMS working party.
Response from the group:
7 attendees voted YES, 0 (Zero) voted NO
4.2 Second requirement:
Allow the load library for IBM's File Manager under ISPF to be dynamically allocated from within a CLIST/EXEC, for example by LIBDEF.
Justification:
Current versions of File manager (at least up to V7.1.0) require the load library to be pre-allocated outside ISPF, for example by adding it to STEPLIB or the linklist. This makes testing new versions and fixes difficult. It is possible, by using such facilities as TSOLIB ACTIVATE, but awkward (because the user has to exit ISPF to do it) and accident-prone (because the user has to remember to use the level of the CLIST/EXEC corresponding to the load library). Being able to allocate the load library from within the CLIST/EXEC removes both of these problems. The competitor product which File Manager is marketed to replace has been able to do this for a very long time.
Background:
This is really a pretty general requirement - any product which runs under ISPF should be able to allocate all its resources dynamically, for the reasons listed above and many more. IBM are marketing FM hard as a replacement for Compuware's File-AID, which has been able to LIBDEF its loadlib for as long as I can remember.
Response from the group:
7 attendees voted YES, 0 (Zero) voted NO
5. Presentations
CA-Campus Overview & CA Updates – Graham Tapper (Computer Associates)
Select the link to download the presentation.
RACF 1.8 Update & 1.9 Announcements – Mark Wilson (Logicalis)
Select the link to download the presentation.
Server Time Protocol Considerations – Iain Neville (IBM UK Ltd)
Select the link to download the presentation.
IBM Updates – Roger Fowler (IBM UK Ltd)
Select the link to download the presentation.
Hints and Tips
Aurora D’ell Anno – Compuware:
Details requested but not received.
Nigel Pentland – NAG
Is there a way of interrogating RACF to find what CICS resources a specific user has access too.
Mark Wilson has sent Nigel a piece of assembler code that will do a RACROUTE REQ=AUTH for a set of resources and users he can define.
6. Feedback
None received so far. |
