US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator 
Author Message
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

System Development Consultants

SDC, Inc. is a quality provider of Information Technology and Engineering
professionals on a contract basis.  SDC management is represented by
individuals that have senior level experience in the professions they
serve.  With offices in western Minneapolis and southern California, SDC
is headquartered in Carlsbad, CA and has been serving commercial,
government and military clients since 1990.

Requirement: ENDEVOR Administrator  ($50-70/hour)
Location:    St. Paul

SDC has a client looking for an ENDEVOR Administrator experienced in
building processor groups.  This person will support their large Y2K
effort. The initial term is a 6 month contract with extensions likely.
COBOL experience is a plus.

This is an immediate opening.   Please contact us immediately.

Contact:  Al Will

SDC, Inc.
PO Box 178
Excelsior, MN 55331

(877) 364-1005 toll free
(612) 470-4211 voice
(612) 470-1822 FAX




Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator
Al Will's posting is so polite and progessional that folks should apply just to
compliment him for being so well behaved and so unusual in this newsgroup.
Realy, it's a fine ad.

But I can not just let this go by. Do you see that this ad says that endevor is
such a piece of junk, and that it is so junky and utterly junkitude that they
are going to pay
folks $70.00 / hour to move your code into production?!  If this were not
Friday night, I might think it is the ad that is making me laugh this hard.

When you need a PhD to move somehting up, then it is time to go back to the
drawing board.  Is this ad really posted in the same newsgroup as the utterly
serious cross chatter about the virtuousness of column 73-80 for maintenance
annotation?

Why can't they just let us program?

The only thing that is more fun is column 1-6 for maintenance annotation
practice that prevents auto renumber facilities and compels NONUMB dataset
attributes.

As gargantuum as endevor is, I frequently encounter shops where under emergency
conditions you discover there is no current source listing (No verb list, no
map: nothin' ! You have to hope the current production release parms are the
ones that were used to gen the program you are cogitatin' and kind of deploy a
sampling sort of thing to support debuging.) - it is just this kind of
circumstance that makes COBOLers into Assembler afficionadoes.

But you know, that is not how this is supposed to go! Software maintenance
practices are supposed to make the technicians job easier.

If the librarians in St. Paul are getting paid $70.00/hr then they are getting
more than a large portion of the programmers there.  I honestly believe that
the ad clearly indicates that endevor is not the solution we have all been
looking for.

Best Wishes,

Robert Rayhawk



Wed, 05 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator
I've wondered about SCLM, glad to hear it's good. I've used LMF a few times
and liked it, never got to try SCLM after it came out - it's sort of LMF
plus more tracking, a make facility, and more flexibility with DSN's etc.
isn't it?

Robert M. Pritchett, President - RMP Consulting Partners LLC

"Quality means doing it right the first time!"
See http://www.headhunter.net/jobstv/0j/j04651mjxt8trch80j.htm?ShowJob
Contractors: tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Join us and let us help you get
that same contract on a 1099 as a self-employed independent contractor!

Quote:

>After working with Endevor, I can thoroughly recommend SCLM that
>comes for free with ISPF.  Hard to understand and setup but a
>breeze to work with once you have made the leap of understanding.



Wed, 05 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator
Robert,

After working with Endevor, I can thoroughly recommend SCLM that
comes for free with ISPF.  Hard to understand and setup but a
breeze to work with once you have made the leap of understanding.

Endevor is easy to understand but just misses the boat on
configuration management of source.  Probably why they value the
skills.

Sorry, off topic. Last post I promise :->
Ken



Thu, 06 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

Quote:

> I've wondered about SCLM, glad to hear it's good. I've used LMF a few
> times and liked it, never got to try SCLM after it came out - it's
> sort of LMF plus more tracking, a make facility, and more flexibility
> with DSN's etc. isn't it?

SCLM is LMF extended.

SCLM requires the following library structure:

        PROJECT.LEVEL.TYPE

Where project is the division of the application PAYROLL or
CLIENT1,
LEVEL is the position in life cycle eg DEV, TEST, UAT, PROD,  TYPE
is the content eg JCL, SOURCE, MACRO.

The packaging (grouping of programs within a change) is called an
ARCHDEF. For example it may contain program1, program2, program3.

When you develop a module containing many subroutines you define
the program in an archdef such as:

   INLCD  PROGRAM1  SOURCE
   INCLD  MODULE1   SOURCE
   INCLD  MODULE2   SOURCE

   LOAD   PROGRAM1

It automatically compiles the modules that have changed and links
them in.  In the same way as Unix Make works only the changed
modules are compiled.

If you wish to change a copybook you never have to worry, create
an archdef including all the programs containing the copybook and
then build (compile) it.  Once you have done this you promote the
change through the environments.

if you change a single unit within a more complex change (say UAT
finds an error).  You go into edit the module is automatically
copied from UAT into the lowest level, you make your changes and
then build and promote the main archdef.  If you only changed one
module then that is all that is copied up.

The copy is also interesting:  The compile is only done at the
bottom and then the load module is copied between groups.  If
something goes out of step (eg you change a copybook and forget to
build or compile all the rest of the programs) the promotion will
fail.  This ensures that the programs you tested are what actually
goes live.

This is a great system that comes for free with ISPF.  It really
is a pain to set up but once you have and are used to it there is
nothing easier to run.

Ken



Fri, 07 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

Quote:

> But I can not just let this go by. Do you see that this ad says that
endevor is
> such a piece of junk, and that it is so junky and utterly junkitude that
they
> are going to pay
> folks $70.00 / hour to move your code into production?!  If this were not
> Friday night, I might think it is the ad that is making me laugh this
hard.

> When you need a PhD to move somehting up, then it is time to go back to
the
> drawing board.  Is this ad really posted in the same newsgroup as the
utterly
> serious cross chatter about the virtuousness of column 73-80 for
maintenance
> annotation?

You don't need a PhD - just common sense and a willingness to learn about
a tool that can save your bacon when the feces hit the fan.

Quote:
> Why can't they just let us program?

I want to know what code I'm running when your make your fixes; so if I
(god forbid) have to undo what was done I got a record of what it looked
like
before; during, and after your firefight.

Quote:
> The only thing that is more fun is column 1-6 for maintenance annotation
> practice that prevents auto renumber facilities and compels NONUMB dataset
> attributes.

> As gargantuum as endevor is, I frequently encounter shops where under
emergency
> conditions you discover there is no current source listing (No verb list,
no
> map: nothin' ! You have to hope the current production release parms are
the
> ones that were used to gen the program you are cogitatin' and kind of
deploy a
> sampling sort of thing to support debuging.) - it is just this kind of
> circumstance that makes COBOLers into Assembler afficionadoes.

Unless the code is written by a vendor who ships load only there is simply
no excuse whatsoever for not having a listing that matches to code in
production.

No excuse.

Quote:
> But you know, that is not how this is supposed to go! Software maintenance
> practices are supposed to make the technicians job easier.

> If the librarians in St. Paul are getting paid $70.00/hr then they are
getting
> more than a large portion of the programmers there.  I honestly believe
that
> the ad clearly indicates that endevor is not the solution we have all been
> looking for.

IMO Endevor is a very viable solution; I wouldn't dare think of doing any
large
scale devlopment without it.

What you might be seeing is the fact that installing and institutionalizing
Endevor (or any decent SCM) is not only non-trivial but close to being
a geurilla operation as one can get in the confines of any IS shop-everyone
has you in their sights, waiting for you to fall victim for any mumber of
reasons.

The fact that Endevor and other SCM's are shelfware in many
IS organizations is more telling of how much value these shops place on
SCM-namely; none.

Sorry for the rant; but I've seen Endevor SAVE projects that would have
othwewise failed-and the effort to make it work reasonably
wasn't all that great.

Quote:
> Best Wishes,
>  Robert Rayhawk


Randy


Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator
Sounds neat except do you really have to define/list everything yourself
e.g. who calls/copies what? That should be the tool's job. I've used Realia
Cobol Workbench and it has a Make Generator that scans the programs, sees
who copies what, and generates the file that feeds the Make. Doesn't SCLM
have something to do that?

Robert M. Pritchett, President - RMP Consulting Partners LLC

"Quality means doing it right the first time!"
See http://www.headhunter.net/jobstv/0j/j04651mjxt8trch80j.htm?ShowJob
Contractors: tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Join us and let us help you get
that same contract on a 1099 as a self-employed independent contractor!

Quote:

>When you develop a module containing many subroutines you define
>the program in an archdef such as:

>   INLCD  PROGRAM1  SOURCE
>   INCLD  MODULE1   SOURCE
>   INCLD  MODULE2   SOURCE

>   LOAD   PROGRAM1



Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

Quote:

> Sounds neat except do you really have to define/list everything
> yourself e.g. who calls/copies what? That should be the tool's job.
> I've used Realia Cobol Workbench and it has a Make Generator that
> scans the programs, sees who copies what, and generates the file that
> feeds the Make. Doesn't SCLM have something to do that?

When you first set it up (on historical programs) then you have a
utility that scans the loadlib and generates an include deck for
you.

When you are defining a program for the first time (or adding a
subroutine) then it really is not that difficult.  It is very
explicit about what is imbedded by design.  It really is not as
difficult as it may sound.

Ken



Wed, 12 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

Quote:

>Unless the code is written by a vendor who ships load only there is simply
>no excuse whatsoever for not having a listing that matches to code in
>production.

>No excuse.

Listing?  You are joking, are you not?  I produce about one listing per
decade.  I do not even know how to on my current compiler.  Never had the
need.  Do you punch out a deck of cards as well?


Wed, 12 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 US-MN-St Paul >> Endevor Support Administrator

Quote:


> >Unless the code is written by a vendor who ships load only there is
simply
> >no excuse whatsoever for not having a listing that matches to code in
> >production.

> >No excuse.

> Listing?  You are joking, are you not?  I produce about one listing per
> decade.  I do not even know how to on my current compiler.  Never had the
> need.  Do you punch out a deck of cards as well?

I'm not joking.

I don't need to punch a card deck as my object goes into
the linker; so I have no need to capture that.

If you don't know how to turn on a listing from your compiler
that's your problem; not mine.



Wed, 12 Dec 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 19 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. US-MN-Twin Cities >>> ENDEVOR Administrator <<<

2. US - MN - St. Paul - Contract Job - COBOL/Group One

3. Object Technology Lecture Series - St Paul, MN

4. Object Technology Lecture Series - St. Paul, MN

5. Job openings St. Paul, MN - COBOL/CICS

6. MN - Minneapolis/St. Paul - Smalltalk Developers (ParcPlace Digitalk and Visual Age)

7. HELP>>>>>>>Fortran-Pascal Linking

8. >>>>>>>FROM SMTK TO C++

9. US-KS-KC >>> FOCUS Programmers

10. ><><><><>Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp on INT 14!><><><><><>

11. <<<<<YOU MUST CHECK THIS OUT >>>>>>>>>> 2103

12. >>>>>AVL tree

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software