On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:09:43 -0500, Chris Mason replied to CC: >...there being no provision for individual instruction >over how to shut down the server program in an address space - a deficiency >you may say and I may even agree with you - a CANCEL command is used.
So this is the crux of it. The AUTOLOG process that you like to use is not capable of stopping a process except to cancel it. >That may not be so in every case - as I explained - please take the trouble to >read what I say very carefully. It all there already! > >> Giving users a "choice" between things they don't really understand isn't >>really being helpful to them. > >Supposing that the user isn't going to understand looks like the sort of >overweening arrogance I suffered at the hands of Sterling so-called >Commerce. It was absolutely beyond their comprehension that a mere user >could actually - unimaginable shock, horror - know as much or more about the >interface they were misusing as they - actually the support folk, not even the >misguided developer him/herself - did. Arrogance? PKB. >> An impatient operator with an itchy trigger finger ... > >I am not concerned with real human operators with any sort of finger >complaint. rather I refer to a generally handy piece of crude but well-tried >automation which seems to fit the context in which it is used, namely that of >the CS IP AUTOLOG component. "Finger complaint"? Very funny. Not. CANCEL is an operator command. The fact that there is other software that is also capable of issuing it does not change that in the least. > >> If I'm responsible for providing that functionality then minimizing the risk of >>disaster seems to me not to be the arrogant thing to do, but rather the >>prudent thing to do. > >I'm unclear how I could have led you to consider I might have suggested >otherwise. I think CC explained that. It was clear to me. >The arrogance is in not troubling to explain why something is >necessary when you should be aware there are benefits to be had from not >having that something. Software vendors do not generally explain all the details of why the software needs to be set up in the way that it does. >> Why are we even debating this? > >Because many a customer would be delighted to be able to use the well- >regarded AUTOLOG function for the TN3270E server as well as for all his/her >traditional server functions among which the newly liberated TN3270E server >fits well. Please take the trouble actually to read my earlier posts. Again, the admonition to read your previous (lengthy) posts. I have been reading this exchange between you and Chris Craddock with amusement. Much of what CC writes is over my head, but I often learn something from reading what he writes. If AUTOLOG doesn't know any other way to stop TN3270E the fault is not with TN3270E having NOCANCEL. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
