| Author |
Message
|
| zpat |
 Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: MQ and CICS and REXX |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
CICS TS 2.2, MQ 5.3.1, Z/OS 1.7
OK, this is a long shot but I would like to be able to make MQI calls from a CICS/REXX. Any idea how?
Considering that CICS, MQSeries and REXX were all developed at IBM Hursley - one would hope that this was possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
There's a REXX interface supplied as MA19 support pac. Never tried it in CICS & no idea if it would work thus, but a place to start perhaps?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
MA18 uses the batch interface to MQ. The manual for MA18 states that it will not work with CICS/REXX.
Also IBM have withdrawn MA18 (why do they do this? - it's such a dumb thing to do with such a great language).
I am looking for a way to use the native CICS/MQ interface from a CICS/REXX. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Shows what I know! 
MA18 does indeed seem to have disappeared from the list of support packs, though MA19 declares that it provides REXX support. It also, as you correctly point out, explicitly exclude CICS support.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
MA19 is used for issuing MQ commands from REXX.
MA18 is the REXX MQI wrapper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Shows what I know!
|
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
| zpat wrote: |
MA18 uses the batch interface to MQ. The manual for MA18 states that it will not work with CICS/REXX.
Also IBM have withdrawn MA18 (why do they do this? - it's such a dumb thing to do with such a great language).
|
It looks like IBM is using the retail store mentality. Apparently, MA18 was not being used enough, or at least not to IBM's liking, so they gave it the axe. Nevermind that there may be a number of customers that have been depending on it. What are they supposed to do now?!? 
(Hint: If there is enough of a demand, they will come out with a package to provide it..... at a cost, of course!  )
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markt |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 508
|
| Quote: |
| Apparently, MA18 was not being used enough, or at least not to IBM's liking, so they gave it the axe. |
Complete nonsense. Maybe you need to read the definition of what a Category 2 SupportPac is. MA18 was never an official part of MQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
| markt wrote: |
| Complete nonsense. Maybe you need to read the definition of what a Category 2 SupportPac is. MA18 was never an official part of MQ. |
I never said it was. I know perfectly well what a Category 2 SupportPac is. Are you saying that is a reason not to use them or become dependent upon them? 
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| tleichen wrote: |
Are you saying that is a reason not to use them or
become dependent upon them? |
If they were not to be used, they wouldn't be posted. Because they're as-is, with no committment to development or fault resolution they're perhaps not the wisest thing to rely on, especially for critical functions. If it goes pear shaped, who ya going to call? 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
In support of this, I have to cite tools like the MO71 support pack. I can't even begin to count how many sites I know are dependent now on this one!
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| tleichen wrote: |
| In support of this, I have to cite tools like the MO71 support pack. I can't even begin to count how many sites I know are dependent now on this one! |
Perhaps because they've failed to understand the business cases that fully justify spending real money on real tools...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
I agree. But, between normal human nature and the way much of management is these days, it's little wonder that this is happening. 
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| oz1ccg |
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
|
Hmmmm,
as tleichen said:
| Quote: |
| Apparently, MA18 was not being used enough, or at least not to IBM's liking, so they gave it the axe. |
I know a lot of my clients using this and other old un-supported/withdrawn SupportPacs in the mission critical production environment....
This lead me to jefflowrey said:
| Quote: |
| Perhaps because they've failed to understand the business cases that fully justify spending real money on real tools... |
Automation specialist have three ways to go here, even when having a lot of money to spend:
1- write their own MQ interface for REXX/Netview REXX. And this is non trivial... Just as writing exits...
2- rely on the vendor of automation tool, that they are able to deliver whant the supportpac contains
3- run the risk that the un-supported/withdrawn SupportPac stops to work. Well I don't belive that the SuportPac contains bombs...
The best would be to get the REXX interface moved into a cat 3. SupportPac, right ?
Just my late sunday thourghts.
-- Lock it or Lose it -- 
_________________
Regards, Jørgen
Home of BlockIP2, the last free MQ Security exit ver. 3.00
Cert. on WMQ, WBIMB, SWIFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
| oz1ccg wrote: |
...The best would be to get the REXX interface moved into a cat 3. SupportPac, right ?
Just my late sunday thourghts.
-- Lock it or Lose it -- |
I agree. This begs the question: How is this process done? I mean, how does IBM decide what support pacs will be supported or not? Is it just at a whim, or is there any real process whereby users can influence how these supportpacs are categorized?
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
