On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:46:33 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. . . > >I personally think it's too bad FORCE <anything> was picked as a >CANCEL for non-cancellable jobs. "CANCEL jobname,FORCE" >would have been a lot better if FORCE just *had* to be there. >I guess IBM just forgot to ask me. :-) > Perhaps FORCE ... was chosen for this rather than CANCEL ... because existing controls required a higher authority to issue a FORCE than a CANCEL, and it was deemed to be a bit more risky than a 'plain old CANCEL' (not because of what it does, but because of what it could be applied to)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
