On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:57 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Then it will probably also need to be passed a flag which can be tested > to > > see if it is time to shutdown or continue processing. > > > > The main task can post the shutdown flag at the appropriate time. Once > > shutdown its posted, the subtask winds up its processing, posts the > > completion ECB and exits. > > > > Why not use a WAIT LISt with 2 ECBS being waited on > 1ECB is used to process work > 2ECB is used to QUIESCE or Shutdown > I agree this is a good way to proceed also. > > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Scott Ford <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: MultiTasking question > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:44:38 -0500 > > Yes sir exactly ... > > Scott ford > www.identityforge.com > from my IPAD > > 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > > > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Sam Siegel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Then it will probably also need to be passed a flag which can be tested > to > > see if it is time to shutdown or continue processing. > > > > The main task can post the shutdown flag at the appropriate time. Once > > shutdown its posted, the subtask winds up its processing, posts the > > completion ECB and exits. > > > > Sam > >> On Nov 25, 2013 2:26 PM, "Scott Ford" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Sam, > >> > >> More or less ...it will be passed a socket-description..it will do the > >> rest, so essentially we will listen on two ports ..one will direct > inbound > >> requests to RACF via RACF API. Second port will do the other functions > ... > >> > >> Scott ford > >> www.identityforge.com > >> from my IPAD > >> > >> 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > >> > >> > >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Sam Siegel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Scott. That sample code might be overly complex for what you need. > >>> > >>> Is the new sub-task attached from your true mainline? Or from another > >>> sub-task? > >>> > >>> Does the sub-task need to handle some type of shutdown signal from the > >>> attachor? Or can it be forcibly detached without consequences? > >>> > >>> Sam > >>>> On Nov 25, 2013 2:06 PM, "Scott Ford" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Sam, > >>>> > >>>> We are thinking about modifying our original design...we need one > >>>> additional subtask to handle racf commands and password requests so, I > >> am > >>>> trying to figure out how to retrofit our cobol code with assembler > >> changes > >>>> so I can multitask ...I am looking over your example you sent me > >> sometime > >>>> ago ...between crazy customer requests ..... > >>>> > >>>> Scott ford > >>>> www.identityforge.com > >>>> from my IPAD > >>>> > >>>> 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Sam Siegel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott - Yes ... at the high-level this seems correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm assuming that the mainline will be doing other work while the > >>>> sub-task > >>>>> is running. > >>>>> > >>>>> If the task which attaches the sub-task abends, the sub-task will > also > >> be > >>>>> abended by z/OS. So you will probably need to consider how the > >> sub-task > >>>>> handles unexpected abend conditions in addition to handling > >>>>> abends/return-codes related to the tcp processing. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Scott Ford < > [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Guys and gals, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a mainline that attaches a subtask via an ATTACH macro, the > >>>> subtask > >>>>>> will do Some TCPIP work, all self contained, my question is the > >>>> structure, > >>>>>> i.e.; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mainline --> attach .......do work and post > >>>>>> Check post ..detach? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is my thinking correct ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Scott ford > >>>>>> www.identityforge.com > >>>>>> from my IPAD > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> >
