In <p06240802c8ca998db...@[192.168.1.11]>, on 09/30/2010
at 04:13 PM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" <[email protected]> said:
>The assumption of my comment was the program was written to use STOP
> or MODIFY to signal the task to terminate.
That was a bizarre assumption to make, given the text of
<of7984f549.71e8e0bc-onc12577ac.004ca7dc-c12577ac.004d3...@euroclear.com>.
> was to the effect that it was against the Ops/Automation types
> rules/procedures to use CANCEL
Yes, so far, and you called that rule brain dead.
>(or STOP/MODIFY
Au contraire, it was the fact that the code *didn't* support
STOP/MODIFY that Ops/Automatione was complaining about.
>which use the same QEDIT interface)
STOP and MODIFY use the same interface, but it is not the same as used
by CANCEL.
>Note that I may be wrong about
>the ability to intercept the CANCEL and suppress it
You are.
>since you are going to do an orderly shutdown by treating as a
>STOP.
You can't treat CANCEL as STOP unless you have a time machine. CANCEL
precludes an orderly shutdown.
>The quote was:
>>Setting this up as a started task and then explaining to
>>Ops/Automation that the only way to stop it was to Cancel the
>>Started task was not fun (against their operational procedures) ....
And there's nothing there to the effect that it was against the rules
to use STOP/MODIFY, only that it was against the rules to use CANCEL.
--
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
