Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 2504 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
When you say "looking at the module" you'd have to be referring to source NOT load. Is this a correct assumption?
I'd have to surmise that you're talking about CICS transactions/programs?
Unless the region uses Macro CICS programs, last supported in CICS/MVS 2.1.2 (for HLL) or CICS/ESA 3.1.1 (Assembler H only - No support for HLASM) for their applications, then these would qualify as Conversational. Otherwise, if the programs are Command-Level CICS, they should always be Pseudo-Conversational, unless of course, some numb-nuts coded it as Conversational and management allowed it to be put into Production.
But, aftermarket products such as COMET can be used to allow application-level Macro programs to execute successfully, in CICS/ESA 3.2.1 version/release and greater. Keep in mind that CICS HLL (COBOL) Macro programs could only be written in OS/VS COBOL and support was never included with VS/COBOL II (introduced some 25 years ago) and greater. With that, I'm unsure how COMET handles CICS/TS 3 environments, where OS/VS COBOL is no longer supported. Maybe a customer would have to use another aftermarket product, like MacKinney Systems VS/Cobol Interpreter. But, that's just a SWAG on my part.
Note that many of the IBM transactions (CEMT, CEDA, CEDB, CEDC, CEDF, etc) are Conversational and have been for several decades.
To tell you the truth (and IMHO), this type of question should not be emphasized anymore and its context is unrealistic. There are more important issues to discuss.
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 8280 Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
No, I managed to avoid GDS and unmapped conversations. Although we did have a neat application (a screen painter that generated 3270 data streams and stored them in VSAM files; the application software put the data stream to a terminal and voila instant custom screen without BMS or other tools) that ran at a low level. There was some Assembler involved but not a lot.