On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:06:03 +0000, john gilmore wrote: >Scott Rowe writes: > ><begin snippet> >Also, it's far better to have false conflicts (as exists now), then to have true conflicts that are missed completely! ></end snippet> > >It is indeed a straw man
It is a straw man only if you can guarantee that there is no code outside of IBM code that serializes by issuing their own ENQ on SYSDSN. If you can't say that with certainty, it is not safe for IBM to change the way it works. >no one has proposed abolishing the enq. No, just changing it in an incompatible way. There are other issues. For example, when a job creates a new data set, there is not necessarily a volume at the time that the ENQ is issued. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
