Longer names for Mainframe Jobs

[Jonathan Calloway]

Greetings!

 

We have a job naming convention in place that applies to all jobs, mainframe and distributed.  We are being asked to consider a change to this naming standard which would increase it from 8 characters to 10 (maybe more).  My question  - is it possible for a mainframe job to appear to have a name that is longer than the name of its JCL member?  Could this be done somehow with tagging?  I guess what I am looking for is for all jobs to appear in the scheduler to have the same naming standard?

 

Thanks!

 

Jonathan Calloway

IT Operations Support Analyst

Infrastructure and Operations

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

423-535-7342 (office) | 423-309-2547 (mobile)

 

---

Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer:  https://www.bcbst.com/about/our-company/corporate-governance/privacy-security/email-policy.page

[Don Powell]

Hi Jonathan, 
I think It would be possible to use the FULLNAME.  An example is below. It is like a long qualifier but the complete name can be seen in Reports, CSF and other places by using the FULLNAME 

JOB DPTST001.ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
RUN DAILY
DELAYSUB 09.00
ENDJOB

Just a thought

2¢
Don

[Rick Romanowski]

I created a PROC with a MF and Linux Job that each have a 64-character FULLNAME

JOB MF_JOB_WITH_A_SIXTY_FOUR_CHARACTER_FULLNAME_TO_BE_DISPLAYED_CSF# TASK SELFCOMPLETING              
  SEND 'Job ran!' U(*)                                             
  RUN ANYDAY                                                       
ENDJOB                                                             
                                                                   
LJ LINUX_JOB_WITH_A_SIXTY_FOUR_CHARACTER_FULLNAME_DISPLAYED_IN_CSF#
  AGENT <agent>                                          
  SCRIPTNAME <script>                                   
  RUN ANYDAY                                                       
ENDJOB   


In CSF with Presentation set to display Job Name and Job Qualified:
Job Name Job Qual 
MF_JOB_W ~0000001 
LINUX_JO ~0000002 

Job Name is truncated to 8 characters and Job Qualifier shows a ~ followed by a sequential number(?).

In the PROC MF Job is the first WOB and Linux Job is the second WOB.


In CSF with Presentation set to display Job Name and Fullname.

Fullname shows full 64 characters                              

Job Name Full Job Name
MF_JOB_W MF_JOB_WITH_A_SIXTY_FOUR_CHARACTER_FULLNAME_TO_BE_DISPLAYED_CSF#
LINUX_JO LINUX_JOB_WITH_A_SIXTY_FOUR_CHARACTER_FULLNAME_DISPLAYED_IN_CSF# 

      ​

------------------------------
Senior Systems Analyst
UPS
------------------------------

[Jonathan Calloway]

​All,
OK, let me level set here a little.  Currently all of our jobs both mainframe and distributed use 8 character names like this:
Windows = ZN201W01
AIX = CV630X39
MANFAME = TD898P03

What we are being asked to do is change the naming convention so that two additional characters will be used, like this:
Windows ZN201W01V2
AIX = CV630X39V2

My question is this - Would it be possible to set up mainframe jobs so that their names reflect the new standard?  This would mean that they would have a 10 character name.  I have proposed the use of qualifiers but at this point this option is not "flying".  They are pushing for longer names as apposed to the use of qualifiers.

I am not sure if this could be done through tagging, or if there is a way of give an z/OS job a longer name and then refer to a JCL member within the job definition, but I would prefer that we keep their names consistent with the other jobs, like this:
MAINFRAME = TD898P03V2

Thanks!

<JC>

[Lizette]

Hello -

Please be aware that for mainframe and the way it was designed, it will only allow a maximum of 8 characters.  It will not be able to go beyond that.  Of the fullname function will not assist you in what you are trying to do, then the mainframe job names will need to be handled differently from Midrange.

The Design of the mainframe was created based on a restriction of when the operating system began in the 1950s.  At that time, there was limit storage, address ranges, etc.  So everything was done in a very compact manner.  Over time some of those restrictions have lifted.  The Job Name going beyond 8 characters is still a restriction.  And it is unlikely that that restriction will be removed any time soon.

Lizette


------------------------------
Lizette Koehler
------------------------------

[Lizette]

A side note.  In order to expand a Mainframe Job Name - Pretty much all components in z/OS would have to be altered.  This includes - Messages to allow for a longer job name.  JES2/JES3 processing of jobs, TSO handling of jobs, ISPF handling of jobs.  TCPIP handling of jobs, and you could keep going over each component in z/OS that would use the job name.  There are many areas that would need to be updated to handle a longer job name.  All vendors that have products that interface with z/OS Mainframe would also need to rewrite their code in order to support a longer job name.  

This task would be a huge undertaking for not only IBM but all 3rd party vendors as well that submit and work with Mainframe job names.

What I am attempting to show is this is not a simple expand a job name on the mainframe beyond 8 characters.  That the entire operating system and Vendor products would also have to be rewritten in order to provide a longer name.

So at this time, it is unlikely that a longer job name in z/OS - Mainframe - will occur.  That the 8 character length is the maximum length for a job name.

Shops I have worked at that have Mainframe and Midrange Workflow, use different standards for job names.

------------------------------
Lizette Koehler
------------------------------

[Jonathan Calloway]

​Lizette,

Thank you very much for the response.  You are very informative as always.  I guess what I am trying to do is not re-invent JCL or JES components.  What I was wondering if it would be possible to leave all of that the way it is, yet use ESP statements in such a way that the original JCL name space is used, yet the job name appears to use a different convention.  I was looking at tagging, so something like this:

JOB TN672P03
   TAG 'TN672P03V2'
   RUN WORKDAYS
ENDJOB

Perhaps there would be another way of passing an alternate job name using an ENVAR statement such that the job would "look" like it uses a longer name in CSF or Workstation:

JOB TN672P03
   RUN WORKDAYS
  ENVAR LONGNAME=TN672P03V2
ENDJOB

I am not sure that any of the above will work, I am just "spit balling" some ideas to illustrate my thought experiment.

Thanks!
<JC>

[Lizette]

I talked to my ESP Admin - here is what she said:

ESP doesn't allow you to specify a job name longer than 8 characters but it does allow you to use a job qualifier which may handle what you wants. The job qualifier is also limited to 8characters, but then that will give a total of  16 character job name.

Example:

JOB TN672P03.V2  -->  V2 here is the job qualifier. The MF member name is still TN672P03.   
RUN WORKDAYS
ENDJOB

 

JOB TN672P03V2  -->  IF CA/Broadcom allowed it, which they don't, then this would be a work around to get long jobname, but still pull from the member TN672P03.   
MEMBER TN672P03   
RUN WORKDAYS
ENDJOB

 

The 64 Character jobnames can only be used for non-mainframe job types. Mainframe job types are limited to 8 characters as you said.

Hope that helps.


Basically the MF Job name will always be 8 characters at the maximum.  By creating a longer name (If possible) in CA ESP, it might cause confusion when running ESP Reports or looking at workflows.  As the 8 character name will be the way ESP sees the jobname - and processes might need to be adjusted or people would need to understand, it is always an maximum 8 character job name.

------------------------------
Lizette Koehler
------------------------------