In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/27/2005
at 11:21 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I did. Thanks. It discusses logons on different LPARs. This is
>underreaching. Why not multiple logons on a single LPAR? The
>integrity and serialization issues ought to be the same; the sole
>obvious exception would be contention for the job name; this could be
>resolved by using a generated jobname (SMOP), or prompting the user
>for a suffix character, as in SUBMIT.
Why is the job name even an issue? IBM could easily support multiple
sessions with the same name and allow ASID on the CANCEL command the
same as for other cancels. If STOP/MODIFY is an issue, they could use
a session id as a task id.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
