At 07:18 +0100 on 05/10/2014, CM Poncelet wrote about Re: Vendor Source Code:
No, the ISV's updated code had assumed that a transaction's combination of parms had to be either 'this' or 'that' etc. but had overlooked that it could also be 'other' - which when true caused the ISV's code to loop back and try again, forever ... and the online systems then froze because they were getting no response from the ISV's application code (executing as a started task).
What changed between the prior and current parm checking routines? Or was this a case of all the prior routines ALSO having this flaw and for some reason the unanticipated combination had never been generated before? I call this type of unanticipated condition a SNA (Should Not Occur) one and I code a SNA routine at the end of the checks for conditions to be handled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
