Yes. I structure my rules the opposite way (subsystems within user ids), but
that's just a matter of preference. Your way does avoid having to have a
catch-all at the bottom of the rules. For example I have...
Subsystem Type . : DDF Fold qualifier names? Y (Y or N)
Description . . . DB2 Distributed Transactions
Action codes: A=After C=Copy M=Move I=Insert rule
B=Before D=Delete row R=Repeat IS=Insert Sub-rule
More ===>
--------Qualifier-------- -------Class--------
Action Type Name Start Service Report
DEFAULTS: DDFDEV DDFD
____ 1 UI CNPREAD ___ DDFDEV DDFCASW
____ 2 SI P* ___ DDF DDFPCASW
____ 2 SI T* ___ DDFDEV DDFTCASW
____ 2 SI D* ___ DDFDEV DDFDCASW
____ 1 UI COINS* ___ DDFDEV DDFCOIN
____ 2 SI P* ___ DDF2 DDFPCOIN
____ 2 SI T* ___ DDFDEV DDFTCOIN
____ 2 SI D* ___ DDFDEV DDFDCOIN
____ 1 UIG OMSDDF ___ DDFDEV DDFOMS
____ 2 SI P* ___ DDF2 DDFPOMS
____ 2 SI T* ___ DDFDEV DDFTOMS
...
____ 1 SI P* ___ DDF DDFP
____ 1 SI T* ___ DDFDEV DDFT
____ 1 SI D* ___ DDFDEV DDFD
I wouldn't lump DDF and TSO together in the same service class, but perhaps
that might makes sense at a sufficiently low transaction volume? Or there
might be non-technical reasons for doing so? Just curious...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
