On 7/27/2014 6:59 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
They didn't *need* to make it inconsistent. Perhaps JES3 was motivated
to maintain diachronic compatibility with existing art. But that works only
until the 100,001st job is submitted and all that existing art breaks in a
rude surprise.
Simpler is better.
JES3's jobid formatting is far simpler: 100% predictable, given only the
job number as input, and results in no inconsistencies.
JES2's jobid formatting requires checkpoint-resident metadata in order
to know how a job number should be formatted. In addition, formatting
inconsistencies will arise immediately, once the maximum job number
parameter is raised above 64K, since existing jobids on SPOOL <64K
continue to be formatted as JOBnnnnn side-by-side with new jobs in the
same <64K range formatted as J00nnnnn.
Having said all that, trivial checking of jobid+1 for a numeric value is
all that's needed to know which technique has been used in all cases and
that's exactly what (E)JES does when such knowledge is required.
Hmmm... for jobs up to 99999, will the first two characters be
juliet-zero or juliet-oscar?
I wrote 'J00' in my previous post because that is what's used: zero-zero.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
