I said > >Aw c'mon Scott, using the dynamic exit facility is a no-brainer! > >Ensuring that your exit is always at the front of the queue is a little > >more challenging :-)
(I didn't really mean I -wanted- to be first, or that I even wanted to be there at all) > Shmuel added these 2 cents: > > >Sigh! What is the supported programmatic way to do this when there is > >more than one program involved? They can't both be at the front of the > >queue. > > > >The first rule of systems programming should be: whatever you're > >doing, don't assume that you're the only one with a need to do it. After eons passed, Scott came back from his summer holiday to give us a terrifying answer to the rhetorical question of how to ensure that your own exit is always "first" with this amusing disclaimer: > Disclaimer: If two or more processes use this algorithm, the system will > perform no useful work.. Joking aside, the underlying problem is that too many vendors are adding front-ends to a wide range of system functions (not just SSI functions) because they perceive a "need" to control that function, or at least to know that it is being invoked and take some action. A lot of the automation products depend on that sort of approach. The question of who's on first is kinda silly, but I have seen developers convince themselves that they just -had- to be first. As we know, there's really no rational way to ensure that it so. It might be easier all around if IBM surveyed the current usage of those hooks and offered new dynamic exit intercepts, or in some cases perhaps just new ENF signals, so products can get notified of the things the need to see and get out of the BCP's panties at the same time. > Is that easy enough, Chris? Um... I am without words. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
