I was not aware of that myself ! But I will try and get an answer for you.
The MainView for CICS CTG Health Monitor Subtask Code (CMRCTGH) must live in a PDSE, as it is a “program object” and not a load module.
It contains XPLINK interface to the Gateway statistics API.
The "TOSZLINK" library is guaranteed to be a PDSE, whereas the "BBLINK" library is not (can be, but more than likely will not be).
The same restriction is true for the MainView for IP module TACSNMPM, which is for the SNMP API.
Hope that helps.
Thanks a lot for answering!
So the TOSZLINK is being used as a PDSE to store code which belongs to Mainview but can't be delivered through BBLINK?
Using TOSZLINK for these special situations, may it have an impact on RTCS when migrating to a newer release of MVCICS and MVIP?
Not that stopping RTCS and restarting RTCS with the other Mainview STCs is a problem per se.
I thought that RTCS is completely independent and therefore free of any Mainview or other product code.
have a nice day
(traying to keep cool due to extremely hot weather ;-))
just one additioal thought:
What stops BMC from declaring BBLINK a PDSE?
| Using TOSZLINK for these special situations, may it have an impact on
| RTCS when migrating to a newer release of MVCICS and MVIP?
It should not. TOSZLINK is just an (otherwise) ordinary SMP/E Target Library, used by RTCS and other BMC products. As long as proper maintenance and deployment procedures are followed, everything should simply work out well. Folks should not assume, however, that all that is contained in TOSZLINK is RTCS-related program objects. It's just a (program object) library, no more or no less important than almost every other one.
| What stops BMC from declaring BBLINK a PDSE?
There are several considerations. BBLINK should have been migrated to become a PDSE long before now, because it would address many problems (for which other solutions had to be found -- such as placing programs that for IBM-imposed technological reasons have to be program objects into some other library that is a PDSE [such as TOSZLINK]). But forcing customers to allocate BBLINK as a PDSE would at this time also break things (such as the [so-called, but horribly and academically misnamed) "password protection" (i.e., product license codes) facility, which only works when the modified load modules are -- literally -- just that: load modules in an ordinary PDS (this is due to the fact that the "password" code rewrites/updates a "load module" using BPAM/BSAM, which does not work with PDSEs).
This can only be addressed by fixing all the consequent issues that would arise from such a change, and I would expect that after BBLINK being an ordinary PDS for 52 years (since 1967 with the CUE and PPE products from Boole & Babbage being link edited into the first library called BBLINK) other problems that none of us here at BMC have ever anticipated are likely to crop up.
Nonetheless, many customers have made this request, but an insufficient number to get it moved up the priority list.