In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
01/22/2008
at 11:42 PM, "Craddock, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You're comparing apples and fish. Locking has nothing to do with it.
>Outside of the sup-state-only suspend/resume function, wait/post was the
>only primitive available for synchronizing separate units of work until
>the pause/release function came along in OS/390 2.5 or thereabouts.
Nonsense; ENQ/DEQ was available since Day One, and I'm sure that you've
written more code for *them* then you care to remember. CS and CDS have
been available almost as long. A hammer is a lousy screw driver.
>pause/release
Wasn't that in support of Unix system Services rather than something
driven by the requirements of legacy MVS code? IAC, I see it as having as
many pitfalls as WAIT/POST, perhaps more.
If I were going to add a new synchronization mechanism to MVS it would be
a high performance thread safe service for maintaing a queue of work
elements, similar to queue files in Unix but with cross memory and SRB
support.
--
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
