Shane, don't say no until you know why I choose the *MASTER* :-) I have a STC but this can be stoped while the CADS is still in need. There can be also several instance of this STC. The SRB stuff was already finished and works for other stuff. Just a new function to create and delete a CADS has been added and the CADS is required for the life-cyle of the system unless the cust delete it on demand
A lot of IBM-software and NON-IBM choose the same ways and I don't see anything bad with this. Also it's usual to schedule SRB into the *MASTER*. Can you please explain Why I shouldn't this. What is the benefit for you to stick with another STC just to hold the CADS? Greetings to downunder Roland >>From a customer perspective this is all too common. There ain't that >much code that *truly* needs an anchor with a "life of IPL". >If it needs to [pre|post]-date JES we (as customers) can organize that. >Put it out there, document it, and we'll organize the STARTED >entry/scheduling/whatever. > >A STC that sits there is its finger in its (own) ear doing nothing is >way more preferable than something that molests *MASTER*. > >Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
