Discussion:
AC(1)
(too old to reply)
Peter Relson
2018-05-04 11:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD
concatenation is for libraries)?
</snip>

I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load libraries,
I'd imagine that the OPEN processing is done
only for cases where it applies.

<snip>
IPLINFO is a REXX exec.
</snip>

I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
programming interface.

Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
John McKown
2018-05-04 11:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Relson
<snip>...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD
concatenation is for libraries)?
</snip>
I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load libraries,
I'd imagine that the OPEN processing is done
only for cases where it applies.
<snip>
IPLINFO is a REXX exec.
</snip>
I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
programming interface.
​I hit my head last night, as will be obvious from:

OOH! OOH! I have an idea for REXX: "embedded assembler". Followed by
"embedded <other language like COBOL, PL/1, etc>".​
Post by Peter Relson
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
--
We all have skeletons in our closet.
Mine are so old, they have osteoporosis.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Seymour J Metz
2018-05-04 15:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why? Wouldn't it be better to put facilities requiring assembler into function packages so that other REXX scripts can use them? It's no rocket science.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-***@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of John McKown <***@GMAIL.COM>
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:44 AM
To: IBM-***@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: AC(1)
Post by Peter Relson
<snip>...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD
concatenation is for libraries)?
</snip>
I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load libraries,
I'd imagine that the OPEN processing is done
only for cases where it applies.
<snip>
IPLINFO is a REXX exec.
</snip>
I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
programming interface.
​I hit my head last night, as will be obvious from:

OOH! OOH! I have an idea for REXX: "embedded assembler". Followed by
"embedded <other language like COBOL, PL/1, etc>".​
Post by Peter Relson
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
--
We all have skeletons in our closet.
Mine are so old, they have osteoporosis.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
John McKown
2018-05-04 17:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seymour J Metz
Why? Wouldn't it be better to put facilities requiring assembler into
function packages so that other REXX scripts can use them? It's no rocket
science.
​It's Friday. And I hit my head last night on a hard object (stumbling to
b-room). And I'm on vacation today. Three good reasons!
--
We all have skeletons in our closet.
Mine are so old, they have osteoporosis.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Steve Horein
2018-05-09 11:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Relson
<snip>
I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
programming interface.
</snip>
If a data area is described with "Programming Interface Information" and
then referenced via Rexx STORAGE calls, is that considered a choice to not
use an intended programming interface?
I am an automation administrator with regrettably zero assembler
programming skills, and tend to use such Rexx calls to alleviate the
painful process of MVS command output parsing to get information, if
available, when I can.
Would I use the CSVAPF service (or IOCINFO, or UCBSCAN, or ...) if it were
available as a Rexx function? In a heartbeat. Do I believe IBM will spend
time, effort, and money on such an endeavor? It seems unlikely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Loading...