"colportating" ... Interesting word :-) Anyway, I don't think its unreasonable to want to have a server that waits forever (while other work is going on). How would you suggest that be best accomplished using the pipeline, then? -- bc
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM, John P. Hartmann <[email protected]>wrote: > Bob, even if you don't ask. > > You were colportating. > > I cannot see any reason to put something on the wait queue to wait forever. > But then Finn sometimes looked a bit further than others. > > j. > > On 13 January 2011 17:31, Bob Cronin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hehheh, hey, its not me that was claiming its a bug (and you answered > > precisely as I expected you would ;-). Anyway, would it be useful to have > a > > built-in construct in the pipeline that would enable people to express > the > > desire to wait "forever" without having to resort to delay with a > > possibly-too-large number? Seems to me such a facility would make these > > pipe-driven servers that are supposed to run forever more robust. > > -- > > bc > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Smith, Wayne H Mr CTR DISA CDB12 < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The code below resolves my issue. My server is now executing the > > > commands as advertised in the PIPESERV documentation. > > > > > > Thanks to all for the help. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Cronin > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:45 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] PIPESERV Not Responding > > > > > > Perhaps the Piper could comment on this alleged "bug" in delay? > > > -- > > > bc > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Bob Cronin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > FWIW ... A plumber in Germany came up with this and it seems to have > > > > bypassed the problem for us: > > > > > > > > It's not a pipeserv problem - it's a bug in pipeline's delay stage > > > (TOD > > > > overrun in 2042). As a bypass please change the line with literal > > > +99999 to > > > > literal +59999 > > > > > > > > I tried it on our z/VM 5.4 Test System and it works. > > > > > > > > Note: > > > > The actual line in the PIPESERV REXX module is: > > > > > > > > '\ literal +999999999', /* Never expiring timer > > > */ > > > > > > > > This should be changed to: > > > > > > > > '\ literal +599999999', /* Never expiring timer > > > */ > > > > -- > > > > bc > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jeffrey Forte <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> We had a system running this code that is used for our software > > > >> distribution within IBM. We had a couple > > > >> of 5.4 systems that were IPL'ed just last week. The server came up > > > with > > > >> no > > > >> problems. After some emails were > > > >> sent out about problem, I logged onto on of the server and IPL CMS. > > > Would > > > >> not start at that point. Worked fine on > > > >> Monday and then it has been failing since Tuesday. As far as I can > > > tell, > > > >> nothing has changed. > > > >> > > > >> Jeff Forte > > > >> z/VM System Support > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> 720-396-1716 > > > >> > > > >> > Well, I am told that this pipeline has not been changed for years > > > and it > > > >> all > > > >> > of a sudden stopped working the first time the virtual machine > > > running > > > >> it > > > >> > was re-IPL'd this year (which just happened to be on 1/11 so I > > > thought > > > >> it > > > >> > might be related as I have seen similar issues in other areas when > > > >> "weird" > > > >> > dates occur). Thoughts on where to start trying to debug it? I've > > > >> literally > > > >> > never seen PIPESERV until last night so am a bit out of my > element. > > > >> > -- > > > >> > bc > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Rob van der Heij > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Shimon Lebowitz < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > And how exactly did my name get involved in this thread? :-) > > > >> > > > Shimon > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Oh, my bad! I confused you with Hobart. We plumbers all look > > > the > > > >> > > same from behind :-) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Sir Rob the Plumber > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
