#1) one should always code for threadsafety regardless... #2) yes, I did 'code the required service'. Which doesn't make the requirement superfluous by any means.
________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Victor Gil <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: COBOL 2014 dynamic capacity tables If the "update a table row" logic has no imbedded CICS commands it won't be interrupted by CICS, so the updater will have no competition, thus no serialization is required [I am talking about "regular" CICS tasks, dispatched on QTCB, not those fancy running on "open TCBs"]. However, it is required during the table re-allocation as the logic does need to call CICS for memory re-allocation [which may or may not cause the task to get re-dispatched]. Anyway, looks like you have already coded the required service. -Victor- --------------------------- Because your average COBOL programmer, in my experience, knows "bupkis" abound dynamic memory allocation. Perhaps I am wrong, but as far as I know I am the only one in our shop who ever uses it. As for your concern about serializing storage between multiple concurrent tasks, I don't know of situations that would require this. This is intended for use within a single run-unit. But even if a table was shared between multiple tasks (within a CICS region I can only imagine) you have this concern with our without "dynamic tables". You'd have to serialize updates in either case, so I don't see why dynamic capacity tables would cause any additional heartache. Frank ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
