IBM's CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


I am working on a z/OS Enterprise COBOL migration project and will be using 
IBM's CCCA product to automate the code conversion.  I'm interested in 
hearing from anyone who has experience customizing the LCPs for this 
product.

I have two near-term goals:

1. Remove any CBL (PROCESS) statements.
2. Convert calls to ILBOABN0 to CEE3ABD.

You can reach me here or off-list.

Thanks!

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems, Inc.


0
Reply lkahm (13) 9/26/2007 10:49:40 AM

See related articles to this posting


Larry,
  I would really be surprised if you find many (hear or anywhere) that have done 
this.  "Back in the day" when CCCA was in more demand/use than it is today, 
there were several presentations at GUIDE on it.  I had some of my own ideas 
about doing some CPs for "odd situations" - but never found ANYONE else using 
that facility.

You *might* find more takers in IBM-MAIN or the CICS list than on 
comp.lang.cobol (but even there, I sort-of doubt it)

   ***

P.S. For my own information, any reason that you are removing CBL statements? 
(Are these just CICS ones with things like RES,LIB - where the "RES" is now 
ignored)?

P.P.S.  If you are looking for ILBOABN0, you might also want to look for 
ILBOWAT0 - although that was pretty rare in its use.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Larry Kahm" <lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote in message 
news:8PqKi.3071$kA4.1224@trnddc07...
>I am working on a z/OS Enterprise COBOL migration project and will be using 
>IBM's CCCA product to automate the code conversion.  I'm interested in hearing 
>from anyone who has experience customizing the LCPs for this product.
>
> I have two near-term goals:
>
> 1. Remove any CBL (PROCESS) statements.
> 2. Convert calls to ILBOABN0 to CEE3ABD.
>
> You can reach me here or off-list.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Larry Kahm
> Heliotropic Systems, Inc.
>
> 


0
Reply wmklein (2605) 9/26/2007 12:45:04 PM

Bill,

I'll try cross-posting in a day or so.

As for removing CBL statements - I'd like to make sure that all of the 
compile options are standardized in the change management product.  If 
options exist in the source, as opposed to on an ISPF panel, no one's going 
to know what they are.

One goal I have, as a side-effect of migration, is to ensure that all of the 
compile options - for both batch and online - support the use of Fault 
Analyzer and Debug Tool.

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems, Inc.

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message 
news:kvsKi.568704$Bo7.411763@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> Larry,
>  I would really be surprised if you find many (hear or anywhere) that have 
> done this.  "Back in the day" when CCCA was in more demand/use than it is 
> today, there were several presentations at GUIDE on it.  I had some of my 
> own ideas about doing some CPs for "odd situations" - but never found 
> ANYONE else using that facility.
>
> You *might* find more takers in IBM-MAIN or the CICS list than on 
> comp.lang.cobol (but even there, I sort-of doubt it)
>
>   ***
>
> P.S. For my own information, any reason that you are removing CBL 
> statements? (Are these just CICS ones with things like RES,LIB - where the 
> "RES" is now ignored)?
>
> P.P.S.  If you are looking for ILBOABN0, you might also want to look for 
> ILBOWAT0 - although that was pretty rare in its use.
>
> -- 
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Larry Kahm" <lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote in message 
> news:8PqKi.3071$kA4.1224@trnddc07...
>>I am working on a z/OS Enterprise COBOL migration project and will be 
>>using IBM's CCCA product to automate the code conversion.  I'm interested 
>>in hearing from anyone who has experience customizing the LCPs for this 
>>product.
>>
>> I have two near-term goals:
>>
>> 1. Remove any CBL (PROCESS) statements.
>> 2. Convert calls to ILBOABN0 to CEE3ABD.
>>
>> You can reach me here or off-list.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Larry Kahm
>> Heliotropic Systems, Inc.
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Reply lkahm (13) 9/27/2007 1:20:41 PM

>>> On 9/27/2007 at 7:20 AM, in message <J6OKi.1319$kk4.688@trnddc08>,
Larry
Kahm<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:
> Bill,
> 
> I'll try cross-posting in a day or so.
> 
> As for removing CBL statements - I'd like to make sure that all of the 
> compile options are standardized in the change management product.  If 
> options exist in the source, as opposed to on an ISPF panel, no one's 
> going 
> to know what they are.
> 
> One goal I have, as a side-effect of migration, is to ensure that all of 
> the 
> compile options - for both batch and online - support the use of Fault 
> Analyzer and Debug Tool.

Hmm, that's an interesting point of view.  I would think it would be
*easier* to know what the compile options are if they were included in the
source code.

When recompiling a particular source code how does one know that they need
to apply a particular compile option override?

As an example, our default compile option is ADV (versus NOADV).  However we
have some programs that we converted from old COBOL where we decided not to
remove the 'control character' field on the report file, and thus we need to
compile these with the NOADV option.  So we simply put "PROCESS NOADV" as
the first line in the program.  (PROCESS and CBL are synonyms.)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue...

Frank

0
Reply Frank.Swarbrick (670) 9/27/2007 4:33:30 PM

Frank,

No misunderstanding, just a different point of view....

I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile process 
in the change management system.  In your case, since it was a known issue, 
I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or 
Endevor panel.  It remains associated with your program from then on.

In the assignment I'm still bidding on, the original developers are 
undoubtedly long gone and the offshore talent may or may not know what to do 
about certain options.  If I can find something that's "hidden" and expose 
it during conversion, I've placed the decision point closer to the 
programmer - and the project office.  Once it is known, they can document 
the choice in the change management product when they compile the program.

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems Inc.


"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message 
news:46FB86FA.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
>>>> On 9/27/2007 at 7:20 AM, in message <J6OKi.1319$kk4.688@trnddc08>,
> Larry
> Kahm<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I'll try cross-posting in a day or so.
>>
>> As for removing CBL statements - I'd like to make sure that all of the
>> compile options are standardized in the change management product.  If
>> options exist in the source, as opposed to on an ISPF panel, no one's
>> going
>> to know what they are.
>>
>> One goal I have, as a side-effect of migration, is to ensure that all of
>> the
>> compile options - for both batch and online - support the use of Fault
>> Analyzer and Debug Tool.
>
> Hmm, that's an interesting point of view.  I would think it would be
> *easier* to know what the compile options are if they were included in the
> source code.
>
> When recompiling a particular source code how does one know that they need
> to apply a particular compile option override?
>
> As an example, our default compile option is ADV (versus NOADV).  However 
> we
> have some programs that we converted from old COBOL where we decided not 
> to
> remove the 'control character' field on the report file, and thus we need 
> to
> compile these with the NOADV option.  So we simply put "PROCESS NOADV" as
> the first line in the program.  (PROCESS and CBL are synonyms.)
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue...
>
> Frank
> 


0
Reply lkahm (13) 9/27/2007 11:54:42 PM

>>> On 9/27/2007 at 5:54 PM, in message <6pXKi.4058$Wo4.771@trnddc03>,
Larry
Kahm<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> No misunderstanding, just a different point of view....
> 
> I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile 
> process 
> in the change management system.  In your case, since it was a known 
> issue, 
> I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or 
> Endevor panel.  It remains associated with your program from then on.
> 
> In the assignment I'm still bidding on, the original developers are 
> undoubtedly long gone and the offshore talent may or may not know what 
> to do 
> about certain options.  If I can find something that's "hidden" and 
> expose 
> it during conversion, I've placed the decision point closer to the 
> programmer - and the project office.  Once it is known, they can document

> 
> the choice in the change management product when they compile the 
> program.

Sounds like our change management software is simply lacking when it comes
to those capabilities.  With those capabilities in place your usage of them
sounds quite reasonable.

When compiling for testing are you still able to access change management in
order to make sure that your test compiles have the same compile options as
your production compiles?

Frank



0
Reply Frank.Swarbrick (670) 9/28/2007 12:34:14 AM

In various sites, I've seen differences in compile options at different 
stages.  Sometimes this was deliberate, other times it was based on history. 
I believe the options should be set once for all levels - and overrides used 
if at all necessary.

With ChangeMan, you compile once for the lowest level of the promotion path, 
and the source and load module are copied (in tandem) through each level of 
the path.  With Endevor, you compile at each level of the promotion path - 
and with that comes the risk that the options >may< not be the same.  I 
believe SCLM handles things the same way that ChangeMan does.  I can't speak 
for other products.

One of the aspects of this Enterprise COBOL migration that I want to ensure 
is that the options are a) reviewed, b) understood in context, and c) 
standardized across promotion levels.  Because I'm still idealistic, I'd 
like them to be consistent across applications (but I know better)....

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems, Inc.

In most cases, I believe application programmers start with their own 
"home-grown" JCL.  Once they get through a couple of desk checks, they have 
to load it into Endevor for unit testing.  At that point, the change 
management system's load libraries are used
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message 
news:46FBF7A6.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
>>>> On 9/27/2007 at 5:54 PM, in message <6pXKi.4058$Wo4.771@trnddc03>,
> Larry
> Kahm<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:
>> Frank,
>>
>> No misunderstanding, just a different point of view....
>>
>> I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile
>> process
>> in the change management system.  In your case, since it was a known
>> issue,
>> I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or
>> Endevor panel.  It remains associated with your program from then on.
>>
>> In the assignment I'm still bidding on, the original developers are
>> undoubtedly long gone and the offshore talent may or may not know what
>> to do
>> about certain options.  If I can find something that's "hidden" and
>> expose
>> it during conversion, I've placed the decision point closer to the
>> programmer - and the project office.  Once it is known, they can document
>
>>
>> the choice in the change management product when they compile the
>> program.
>
> Sounds like our change management software is simply lacking when it comes
> to those capabilities.  With those capabilities in place your usage of 
> them
> sounds quite reasonable.
>
> When compiling for testing are you still able to access change management 
> in
> order to make sure that your test compiles have the same compile options 
> as
> your production compiles?
>
> Frank
>
>
> 


0
Reply lkahm (13) 9/28/2007 1:51:54 PM

Larry,
   What interactive debugging tool do you recommend?  I certainly am a believer 
in TEST and sometimes SSRANGE at unit testing levels.  By system test, I would 
expect OPT and possibly NOSSRANGE.  The question of whether or not to create a 
"sym" dataset for production - depends on what you are using - and I know you 
mentioned Fault Analyzer.

P.S.  Larry - as you don't "visit" this site all that often, you may not know 
that Frank works under VSE, not z/OS - so I don't remember which change 
management systems are available there.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Larry Kahm" <lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote in message 
news:_F7Li.1691$jC5.166@trnddc04...
> In various sites, I've seen differences in compile options at different 
> stages.  Sometimes this was deliberate, other times it was based on history. I 
> believe the options should be set once for all levels - and overrides used if 
> at all necessary.
>
> With ChangeMan, you compile once for the lowest level of the promotion path, 
> and the source and load module are copied (in tandem) through each level of 
> the path.  With Endevor, you compile at each level of the promotion path - and 
> with that comes the risk that the options >may< not be the same.  I believe 
> SCLM handles things the same way that ChangeMan does.  I can't speak for other 
> products.
>
> One of the aspects of this Enterprise COBOL migration that I want to ensure is 
> that the options are a) reviewed, b) understood in context, and c) 
> standardized across promotion levels.  Because I'm still idealistic, I'd like 
> them to be consistent across applications (but I know better)....
>
> Larry Kahm
> Heliotropic Systems, Inc.
>
> In most cases, I believe application programmers start with their own 
> "home-grown" JCL.  Once they get through a couple of desk checks, they have to 
> load it into Endevor for unit testing.  At that point, the change management 
> system's load libraries are used
> "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message 
> news:46FBF7A6.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
>>>>> On 9/27/2007 at 5:54 PM, in message <6pXKi.4058$Wo4.771@trnddc03>,
>> Larry
>> Kahm<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:
>>> Frank,
>>>
>>> No misunderstanding, just a different point of view....
>>>
>>> I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile
>>> process
>>> in the change management system.  In your case, since it was a known
>>> issue,
>>> I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or
>>> Endevor panel.  It remains associated with your program from then on.
>>>
>>> In the assignment I'm still bidding on, the original developers are
>>> undoubtedly long gone and the offshore talent may or may not know what
>>> to do
>>> about certain options.  If I can find something that's "hidden" and
>>> expose
>>> it during conversion, I've placed the decision point closer to the
>>> programmer - and the project office.  Once it is known, they can document
>>
>>>
>>> the choice in the change management product when they compile the
>>> program.
>>
>> Sounds like our change management software is simply lacking when it comes
>> to those capabilities.  With those capabilities in place your usage of them
>> sounds quite reasonable.
>>
>> When compiling for testing are you still able to access change management in
>> order to make sure that your test compiles have the same compile options as
>> your production compiles?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Reply wmklein (2605) 9/28/2007 2:18:36 PM

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:54:42 GMT, "Larry Kahm"
<lkahm@nospam_heliotropicsystems.com> wrote:

>I've always been a proponent of keeping the control of the compile process 
>in the change management system.  In your case, since it was a known issue, 
>I'd have you simply enter the appropriate override on the ChangeMan or 
>Endevor panel.  It remains associated with your program from then on.

I agree.   I created a program that I could call to return IDMS
db-keys which are stored in numbers bigger than standard CoBOL could
read.   In my tests, I could stick the compile parm on top of the
code, but Endevor's compile ignored those.   We had to create a new
Compile type for this program.
0
Reply howard (6275) 9/28/2007 2:32:21 PM

Larry Kahm wrote:
> In various sites, I've seen differences in compile options at different 
> stages.  Sometimes this was deliberate, other times it was based on history. 
> I believe the options should be set once for all levels - and overrides used 
> if at all necessary.
> 
> With ChangeMan, you compile once for the lowest level of the promotion path, 
> and the source and load module are copied (in tandem) through each level of 
> the path.  With Endevor, you compile at each level of the promotion path - 
> and with that comes the risk that the options >may< not be the same.  I 
> believe SCLM handles things the same way that ChangeMan does.  I can't speak 
> for other products.
> 
> One of the aspects of this Enterprise COBOL migration that I want to ensure 
> is that the options are a) reviewed, b) understood in context, and c) 
> standardized across promotion levels.  Because I'm still idealistic, I'd 
> like them to be consistent across applications (but I know better)....
> 
> Larry Kahm
> Heliotropic Systems, Inc.

Just a minor correction.  I work in a shop that uses CA-Endevor to 
manage source code and object code, and Endevor can be configured 
either to recompile every time a program is promoted to a new 
environment/stage, or to be compiled only once when it is first added. 
  Our sysprogs chose to compile once and promote source and executable 
without recompiling.  This guarantees that the code installed is the 
code that was actually tested.

It's also possible to configure Endevor to either allow or prohibit 
PROCESS/CBL compile time options.  It is also normal with Endevor to 
create multiple compile templates, for example to support plain batch 
COBOL compiles, batch COBOL with DB2 compiles, COBOL CICS compiles, 
COBOL CICS with DB2 compiles, et cetera.  So even if PROCESS/CBL is 
prohibited, you can create a unique compile processor that enforces a 
different set of compile time options for special cases (compile with 
only production copybooks instead of development copybooks).  We also 
use it to manage assembler, JCL, proc, easytrieve, and runtime 
documentation.

Endevor is a large and flexible tool.  Our biggest problem with it is 
managing concurrent or parallel development.  If a production program 
needs an emergency fix we can do it, jumping over in-flight 
development, but the code change must then be manually retrofitted to 
multiple in-flight versions for various product releases.  Much of 
that problem is bureaucratic red tape.

And no, I do not work for CA.  Naturally, Endevor was written by 
someone else before CA acquired it.

With kindest regards,


-- 
http://arnold.trembley.home.att.net/
0
Reply arnold.trembley (268) 9/28/2007 6:07:04 PM

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:07:04 GMT, Arnold Trembley <arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:


>Endevor is a large and flexible tool.  Our biggest problem with it is 
>managing concurrent or parallel development. 

CVS and Subversion (both open source) are excellent for concurrent development. In normal
mode, checked out files are not locked. On checkin, the file is not replaced, changes are
merged into it. 

Most major VCSs offer merging as an option, but corporate users almost always turn it off
under the mistaken belief that software can't possibly be smart enough to merge code
without error. The genius of CVS is that you CANNOT turn it off (there actually is a way,
but the admin won't tell you about it). Subversion (SVN) does permit locks because it
supports a wider variety of file types, with MIME links to merge and compare programs. 

> If a production program 
>needs an emergency fix we can do it, jumping over in-flight 
>development, but the code change must then be manually retrofitted to 
>multiple in-flight versions for various product releases.  Much of 
>that problem is bureaucratic red tape.

Moving changes upstream is one of the more difficult problems in change management. It is
very common for production and QA  fixes to be overwritten by the next release. 

When the mentality is merging rather than replacing, it's EASY to mechanically merge
changes into upstream releases. It is best overseen by a change management administrator
because none of the other players have an incentive. Waterfall methodologies don't deal
with it because they hate to admit there are errors in production code. 




0
Reply Robert 9/29/2007 1:35:37 AM

In article <oo8rf35kntemgvluc6jrcvjeuu34n4gg4m@4ax.com>,
Robert  <no@e.mail> wrote:

[snip]

>Waterfall methodologies don't deal
>with it because they hate to admit there are errors in production code. 

I've seen human beings admit to, deny, hate and love things (or at least 
say that they do)... but never a methodology.  Our experiences must be 
different; I have never worked on a system where someone, somewhere does 
not claim that code in Prod is error-free; the best is usually 'It's been 
running smoothly since we corrected for the last unexpected set of 
conditions.'

DD

0
Reply docdwarf (6044) 9/29/2007 1:09:15 PM
comp.lang.cobol 4201 articles. 3 followers. Post

11 Replies
162 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 38


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

IBM's CCCA and customized LCPs for Enterprise COBOL migration
I am working on a z/OS Enterprise COBOL migration project and will be using IBM's CCCA product to automate the code conversion. I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has experience customizing the LCPs for this product. I have two near-term goals: 1. Remove any CBL (PROCESS) statements. 2. Convert calls to ILBOABN0 to CEE3ABD. You can reach me here or off-list. Thanks! Larry Kahm Heliotropic Systems, Inc. Larry, I would really be surprised if you find many (hear or anywhere) that have done this. "Back in the day" when CCCA was in more demand/use than it is...

IBM COBOL Migration to Windows COBOL
Hi Everyone, My organization wants to move its IBM z/OS COBOL programs off onto another (perceived-to-be cheaper) platform. One option being discussed is converting the (400+) programs (most of which do financial crunching to create print files) to run on Windows using either MicroFocus COBOL or Fujitsu NETCOBOL. There will be 2-4 programmers on the conversion team. My questions: 1) Does anyone here have a preference between MicroFocus and Fujitsu ? 2) If anyone has done conversions like this, how were DD statement (let alone IDCAMS) functionality converted ? (i.e. pass file descr...

(IBM) Enterprise COBOL, Earlier COBOL's, LE
A while back, there was a lot of discussion (in both IBM-MAIN and comp.lang.cobol) about "changes in run-time behavior" of both newly compiled and NOT re-compiled COBOL programs using SEARCH ALL. The latest IBM Enterprise COBOL "Migration Guide" now has an entire chapter on this topic and I would hope that it addresses the needs (and confusion) of all concerned about this. (If you are NOT a "systems programmer" - you will probably want to have your SysProg check APAR levels for both your COBOL and LE products) For full (and excruciating <G>) details...

(IBM) Enterprise COBOL, Earlier COBOL's, LE
A while back, there was a lot of discussion (in both IBM-MAIN and comp.lang.cobol) about "changes in run-time behavior" of both newly compiled and NOT re-compiled COBOL programs using SEARCH ALL. The latest IBM Enterprise COBOL "Migration Guide" now has an entire chapter on this topic and I would hope that it addresses the needs (and confusion) of all concerned about this. (If you are NOT a "systems programmer" - you will probably want to have your SysProg check APAR levels for both your COBOL and LE products) For full (and excruciating <G>) details, see:...

XML and (IBM) Enterprise COBOL
If you are interested in XML and an IBM z/OS COBOL environment, you might be interested in the SHARE presentation available online at: http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/cobol/demo/ -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com Fascinating, Bill. It was impressive. First time I've seen the WebSphere development environment. Good stuff. One of the things on my "list" was to write an xml enabler that would do exactly what this does. The idea was to analyse COBOL Source and then generate XML. (I already have tools that analyse COBOL Source and generate Relational Data...

IBM Enterprise COBOL V4R2 Announced
The latest release of Enterprise COBOL (for z/OS) was just announced. See: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS209-244/ENUS209-244.PDF -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:I5elm.640206$4p1.307470@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com: > The latest release of Enterprise COBOL (for z/OS) was just announced. > See: > http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS209-244/ENUS209-24 > 4.PDF > So are we finally going to get EXIT PARAGRAPH ? >>> On 8/26/...

IBM Enterprise COBOL and Perform Fallthru
Our shop is converting from COBOL2 (circa 1986) to Enterprise COBOL 3.2. Quite often developers have opted for the CAPEX COBOL compiler in place of COBOL2, but CAPEX is being retired. Is there an IBM COBOL equivalent of the Perform Fallthru checking that CAPEX provides? An initial review of the literature does not seem to indicate any such feature. Thanks, Rick There is a TOTALLY undocumented (and unsupported) since the first release of VS COBOL II feature that will do this. From the original VS COBOL II "debugging manual" if you compile with OPT *and* Place $RNDMP FLAGS=3 ...

IBM Enterprise COBOL V5 announced
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en On Thursday, 25 April 2013 16:58:23 UTC+1, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en Google groups adds a button with the legend "Translate message into English". :-) Frank Swarbrick wrote: > http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/4/897/ENUS213-144/index.html&lang=en&request_loca...

ANN: IBM COBOL Enterprise tools for Eclipse RDz
Semantic Designs is pleased to announce the availability of a variety of specific tools for analyzing IBM Enterprise COBOL (and JCL), complete with GUI integration of each into the IBM RDz Eclipse environment. The tools include: * Source Code Search Engine for large software systems. Lightning fast search simultaneously across multiple languages (COBOL [IBM Enterprise and AS400], and as bonus, JCL, PL/1, Natural, C#, Java, C++, C, Ada, PHP, Fortran, VB6, ...) leveraging the language syntax of each to minimize false positive hits. See http://www.semanticdes...

IBM Enterprise COBOL
This is a follow-up on an earlier IBM-MAIN thread. I thought that it might be interesting AND USEFUL to "document" which IBM Enterprise COBOL compiler options can "impact" run-time behavior. By this I mean that the same source code will compile "cleanly" with any setting of these options but that for programs that COMPLETE their "run" the "output" might be different. (I phrase it this way to avoid options that impact "storage" usage at compile or run-time. I am also "ignoring" performance differences.). Looking at ...

IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS V3R4: RECORD CONTAINS 0
I am interested in writing a program that can process "any" fixed length record, sequential file via QSAM. By "any" I specifically mean that on different runs of the program, different files, that have different logical record lengths, could be processed successfully, without recompiling the program for the new record size. If it is possible, how would you code the FD? The programmer's guide for V3R4 says that if I code "BLOCK CONTAINS 0" I can avoid record length conflicts and not get file status 39 errors. So then what should I code for the descr...

INSPECT: OS/VS vs. IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS and OS/390 3.2.0
All righty... as mentioned the other day I coded: 01 CHAR-1 PIC X. 01 CHAR-80 PIC X(80). .... PROCEDURE DIVISION. PERFORM INSPECT-1. PERFORM INSPECT-80. GOBACK. INSPECT-1. INSPECT CHAR-1 REPLACING ALL 'a' BY 'A'. INSPECT-80. INSPECT CHAR-80 REPLACING ALL 'a' BY 'A' ALL 'b' B...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Expr
IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for WebSphere Studio V1.3.5, IBM Frame2000 V5.5, Peoplesoft Pe...

COBOL II to Enterprise COBOL
Hi, I need to change the some 1000 Program from COBOL II to Enterprise COBOL. What are the essential difference between COBOL II to Enterprise COBOL. How much can it affect my code ? (There are not much DB2,CICS in my code) Thanks, Dib If you are using the NOCMPR2 compiler option with your VS COBOL II compiler and you are using the LE run-time (with RES) then you will probably find that there is almost NO change required. (a few new reserved words, but not many). If you are using the VS COBOL II run-time and/or the NORES option, then you will need to do LOTS of testing for both change...

IBM Cobol and Unisys Cobol
Hello, I am new to this industry. I have started working on Unisys, can anybody please inform me the difference between Unisys cobol and IBM cobol. Thanks inqusite wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to this industry. I have started working on Unisys, can > anybody please inform me the difference between Unisys cobol and IBM > cobol. Well, a little more detail would help get you some answers. Are you using the Unisys A-series (NX) machine, or a 2200 (IX)? Are you using COBOL 74 or 85? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \ / ~...

IBM COBOL
The following (not "official" as far as I know) statement appears in the recent "Cheryl's List #94 - 29 October 2004" "For example, we have been warned that ... the ISAM access method ... will no longer be supported as of z/OS 1.7." Should this be true, then this MIGHT impact some OS/VS COBOL customers who have remained on OS/VS COBOL (rather than migrating to VS COBOL II or later *because* of ISAM support). Personally, I don't know of any sites that haven't converted to VSAM by now, but who knows what actually exists in some shop somewhere. ...

Is Unisys Cobol to IBM cobol a big leap?
How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM? .. On 23.11.04 wrote pkline@ltdXspamXcommodities.com (Jack Benny) on /COMP/LANG/COBOL in 95p6q0pe79vqkbqf9qa1fs1lh0dugagccu@4ax.com about Is Unisys Cobol to IBM cobol a big leap? JB> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM? MCP or OS/2200? Anyway, you would perhaps encounter some strange IBM-extensions to COBOL, but it should not be to big a change, as far as COBOL itself is concerned. But transaction processing with CICS, database interfaces etc have probably bi...

Any IBM POSS Programmers? How do I make a IBM POS VFD Customer Display work?
I have four IBM POS VFD Customer Displays aka "Pole Displays" This is the one attached to various IBM electronic cash registers that shows the customer the price of each item as it is rung up and then the grand total. It has two lines of twenty characters in flourescent blue or green. These particular displays are IBM part number 61P5766. They are beautiful displays, highly readable and from what I understand are very reliable. I would like to be to use them in some PIC projects but there is a problem. I can't find information on how to make them work. They have a four pin ja...

IBM announced newest release of product including "IBM COBOL for Windows"
This week, IBM announced the latest release of the *ONLY* product that they now sell that include a currently supported version of "IBM COBOL for Windows". See: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/0/897/ENUS209-380/ENUS209-380.PDF It appears (but I haven't seen the details) that there are new installation options that will allow a user to better "tailor" which features of RDz they want installed. NOTE WELL: This does NOT mean that there are options for only BUYING those features that you want to use. If you are a shop that *only* wants COBOL (not PL/I...

Re: IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit,
vvcd said: > IBM DB2 Connect Enterprise Edition v8.2, other IBM DB2 (32 bit, 64 > bit) (MULTiOS, Windows, Linux, Solaris), IBM iSoft Commerce Suite > Server Enterprise v3.2.01, IBM Tivoli Storage Resource Manager Express > Edition v1.3.2 Win, IBM Tivoli System Automation v1.2.0 Linux, IBM > Tivoli Workload Scheduler Virtualized Data Centers v8.2 [2 CDs], other > IBM Tivoli CDs, WEBSPHERE EVERYPLACE MOBILE PORTAL v5.0 - ALTIUM [2 > CDs], other IBM WebSphere Business CDs (Windows, Linux) CDs, IBM > Integration Server v5.1 [2 CDs], IBM Telecom Toolkit for Web...