In a recent note, Walt Farrell said: > Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 07:45:19 -0400 > > > > Now, suppose support were added to run 3270 OMVS directly from a tn3270 > > connection, with no TSO involvement. Then a given user could run > > several 3270 OMVS sessions, since the TSO one-session-per-user limit > > would not apply. > > time and money doing it. There are always some questions to answer, > such as "which TSO session should a SEND command choose", but those > Such questions, including the related, "which session should an operator's CANCEL command choose," are predicated on the confusion of session ID with user ID. If the argument to such commands is, properly, a session ID (TSUnnnn) as opposed to a user ID, the effect of the command should be directed to that session. The possibility remains that a user ID could be supplied as the argument, in which case the message should be sent to all sessions owned by that user, or all sessions owned by that user should be cancelled.
This is all similar to the same conceptual error that gave rise to Barry Merrill's tale (likely apocryphal) of the confusion that arose when Alan Scheer caused responses that should have been directed to a session ID to be misdirected instead to a user ID. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
