Barbara schriebt: > Not that I disagree the naming convention is not intuitive, but can you suggest a better convention to the XES developers? When you > have to make sure that it is a name that is not used by anyone outside that group?
A good question, Barbara. You're actually making me have to THINK. :-) Actually what I'd propose is that 74-4 record had the XCF group name for lock resolution in the structure section for lock structures. (Yes I know it doesn't translate for cache, list and serlist structures.) Every lock structure must have a resolving group to deal with eg False Contention, I'd hazard. I'm aware that data sharing group name is NOT going to be the right thing to call the XCF group for the lock structure. Particularly as there is no data sharing group for some exploiters - such as GRS, to bring this back to the original topic. Cheers, Martin Martin Packer Performance Consultant IBM United Kingdom Ltd +44-20-8832-5167 +44-7802-245-584 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
