Can use the same Pathway Server with PATHSEND request and SCREEN COBOL(IDS) ?

[ray]

Dear sirs,
If there is PATHWAY Server.
Could it handle both PATHSEND request(coding by C) and SCREEN COBOL(IDS)?

I read the manual "NonStop TS/MP Pathsend and Server Programming Manual" 4-3
"Considerations for Servers Used With SCREEN COBOL Requesters"
"SCREEN COBOL requesters require that the first two bytes of a server reply message contain an integer reply-code value"

I have SCREEN COBOL(IDS) first.I want to add new PATHSEND request.
The PATHSEND request should have the same format as IDS (message-out),right ?

[Doug Miller]

ray <yehr...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0b348669-9f2a-4941-8f04-
2a5269...@googlegroups.com:

> Dear sirs,
> If there is PATHWAY Server.
> Could it handle both PATHSEND request(coding by C) and SCREEN COBOL(IDS)?

Of course. The server has no reason to care where the message comes from, or what type
of device it comes from, as long as the message is formatted correctly.

>
> I read the manual "NonStop TS/MP Pathsend and Server Programming Manual" 4-3
> "Considerations for Servers Used With SCREEN COBOL Requesters"
> "SCREEN COBOL requesters require that the first two bytes of a server reply message
contain an integer reply-code value"
>
> I have SCREEN COBOL(IDS) first.I want to add new PATHSEND request.
> The PATHSEND request should have the same format as IDS (message-out),right ?

Yes. And if the formats are the same, the server won't know -- or care -- what type of client
sent the message.

[Keith Dick]

Doug Miller wrote:
> ray <yehr...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0b348669-9f2a-4941-8f04-
> 2a5269...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Dear sirs,
>> If there is PATHWAY Server.
>>Could it handle both PATHSEND request(coding by C) and SCREEN COBOL(IDS)?
>
>
> Of course. The server has no reason to care where the message comes from, or what type
> of device it comes from, as long as the message is formatted correctly.

Actually, that is not quite true in all cases. The server has to be aware of the way the message was sent if you want to employ the new Pathsend features that support context-sensitive servers (dialogs, I think they call it) or the longer messages.

What you say is true of an existing server for which you don't want to use either of those additional features, which seems to be situation here, so the answer is correct for this case. I just want to be sure Ray understands that there are some features of Pathsend that he could not use without modifying the server.

[Anupam Das]

>> The server has to be aware of the way the message was sent if you want to employ the new Pathsend features that support context-sensitive servers (dialogs, I think they call it) or the longer messages. <<

You are confusing several things here. Dialogue capability of TS/MP was present well before TS/MP 2.0 a.k.a the modern TS/MP as you were referring to. Longer message support, I guess upto 1MB in size via SERVERCLASS_SENDL_ API was introduced recently with TS/MP 2.3 or TS/MP 2.4 I just forgotten.

If you note, the OP has said in other recent threads, which I believe is connected to this thread, he is having the IDS SCOBOLs since long. SCOBOLs can NOT issue DIALOGUE towards a server, which implies the server initially was coded in a NON-Context-sensitive way( just like any general Pathway server for whom PATHTCP and LINKMON has same value). So, yes, as of now and for this case, we could safely assume the servers are really simple COBOL servers without any context-based processing.

[Keith Dick]

Is this a long way of saying, "Okay, you are right."?

When I said "new Pathsend features", perhaps that confused you. Those features were not in the original Pathsend spec, so, to me, they are "new", that's all.

And I did say that Doug's answer was correct for the OP's question. However, it could give the impression that you never need to make any changes to a server in order to use any Pathsend feature, and that would be the wrong impression. That was the point of my post.

[ozbear]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:09:59 -0800 (PST), Anupam Das
<das.an...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>If you note, the OP has said in other recent threads, which I believe is co=
>nnected to this thread, he is having the IDS SCOBOLs since long. SCOBOLs ca=
>n NOT issue DIALOGUE towards a server, which implies the server initially w=
>as coded in a NON-Context-sensitive way( just like any general Pathway serv=

>er for whom PATHTCP and LINKMON has same value).

That is not true. Look up the DIALOG-BEGIN, DIALOG-SEND, DIALOG-ABORT,

and DIALOG-END verbs in your SCOBOLX manual.

Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Anupam Das]

>> That is not true. Look up the DIALOG-BEGIN, DIALOG-SEND, DIALOG-ABORT, and DIALOG-END verbs in your SCOBOLX manual. <<

Oz,

I always thought OP is running Pathway/iTS 1.0 and NOT Pathway/iTS 1.1 because it was me in a different thread where I asked him to get Pathway/iTS 1.1 from HP. Pathway/iTS 1.1 is where new SCOBOL verbs like DIALOG etc. came into picture. I don't think our original SCOBOL compilers support DIALOG capability. Can you please confirm which release of the PATHTCP and SCOBOLX compiler you are referring to?