IBM Mainframe Forum

Does anyone know where CICS stores information about which programs are associated with which transactions?

There is a file in the region with DD name DFHCSD. This is the RDO file that contains all the definitions for that region.

And, by the way, you have it backwards -- CICS transactions are associated with programs, not what you said. Transactions invoke programs but the program definitions table may include programs that are not tied to a transaction -- a program that is accessed via XCTL or LINK, for example. There is no requirement that a program be tied to a transaction, but every transaction must invoke a program.

Thanks for the input. I apparently don't have access to that data area right now so I can't comment further, but I am checking into it. Is there a CICS function which accesses this file?

As to your other comment, thanks for the input, as I'm always trying to improve my communication skills. I'm not sure that the semantics of my statement are sufficiently off to create a gap in understanding, but it's important to get things right the first time, so it's something to watch out for.

Thanks,
Jim

Check the CICS Resource Definition Guide manual for DFHCSDUP. This utility will extract RDO entries into a flat file for searching or printing. There's a whole chapter in the manual on this utility and its options.

Communication, especially in IT, is extremely important as there are many cases of similar words that mean very different things. The concern I had with what you said, for example, is that your words convey the impression that every program definition is tied to a transaction in CICS. This is not true -- transactions have to reference programs, and those programs have to be in the program table. But there is no requirement that every program be associated with a transaction, and in most shops there are many such programs that are defined but are not associated with a transaction.

By the end of this project I will have read every CICS manual in existence. I'll take a look, thanks for the pointer.

As for the other issue, indeed, X -> Y, but Y !-> X. The English language is indeed a delicate tool.