In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
12/23/2006
at 08:46 PM, Johnny Luo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>However, I'm just curious about this because I know some softwares
>like Tivoli Workload Scheduler can do this job. Then, how TWS did
>that? If they use 'loop' too,
They don't. They use privileged interfaces to request notice of events
important to them.
>I talked this to one of my friend and his opinion is that there is
>nothing special with these production softwares.
He's wrong.
>They still have to use some 'loop' there.
Not the loop that you're thinking of.
>Sounds like a reasonable explanation?
Every phenomenon has an explanation that is simple, obvious,
reasonable and wrong. You'll get a better answer if you ask the vendor
of your job scheduler.
>They say CICS program is pseudo-conversational which means after one
>execution it'll be dead and will not wait for user input which is the
>case for traditional convesational programs.
FSVO dead. CICS is still aware of the status of the transaction. The
difference between conversational and pseudo-conversational is
basically where internal state data are stored.
>However, when next user input comes, how does my programs know that
>since it's dead?
FSVO dead. CICS knows, and that's what matters.
>Why not the user program do this itseft?
Because CICS was designed to run multiple transactions under a single
TCB.
>Maybe it's still because CICS does this better than user's program:)
Better in some ways, worse in others. CICS is not IMS.
--
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
