On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:37:14 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:17:16 -0500, Scott Fagen wrote: >>>> >>>> ... If the ENQ is exclusive for the first step and >>>>shared for the second, it will be changed by the initiator/terminator >>>>between steps. >>>> >>>Nope. >>> >>>Wishful thinking. >>> >>>But why not? >> >>ENQ RET=CHNG only supports 'upgrade' from SHR to EXC, not 'downgrade' from >>EXC to SHR. ... >> >That answers nothing; it's the impatient parent telling the curious >child, "Because!" The question remains, "But why not?" No, it answers the question following the refutation stated in your post: Why doesn't initiator/terminator downgrade the ENQ from EXC to SHR when the job has only DISP=SHR interest in the dataset for any of the remaining job steps. The answer clearly distinguishes where the deficiency lies in the system (GRS, not Allocation). If the question is "why isn't there a RET=CHANGE variant for altering EXC to SHR ownership in ENQ (and/or ISGENQ)?" the answer is, most surely, "because IBM has never seen sufficient business justification to implement the function." > >See Robert Rosenberg's recent well-reasoned contribution on this >topic: > > Linkname: Re: Why is there JOB scope for DSN ENQ's anyway? > URL: http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=ibm-main&P=195906 So, I'd have to guess, based on the insulting tones, that you and Mr. Rosenberg have some resentment about this function not being implemented. C'est la vie. Scott Fagen z/OS Core Technology Design IBM Poughkeepsie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
