Jay Maynard wrote:
It's not like IBM doesn't have lots of code lying around to handle STOP, so it can't be that much of a resource commitment. The problem is that, on a platform whose strong suit is reliability and maintainability, having to issue a command usually reserved for terminating problematical programs to bring down the system "normally" is an exposure. How do you explain to an operator that some things can and should be ended via CANCEL, while others need STOP and using CANCEL on them is a bad thing, while still others will just plain reject a CANCEL?
As I see it, the problem isn't the fact that CANCEL must be issued. Rather, it's the myriad ways that a "normal" shutdown is requested that is the real problem. (Z, C, P, $P, *RETURN, SETRRS, F xxx,SHUTDOWN, etc., etc.) Over the years, allowing different programmers with different ideas to just "do their thing" has resulted in a tremendous (and rather obvious) lack of standardization in this area. Anyone coming fresh to the platform now would have to see it as quite ridiculous!
After all this time, I still can't explain why VTAM responds to the HALT command.
-- .-----------------------------------------------------------------. | Edward E. Jaffe | | | Mgr, Research & Development | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801 | | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | '-----------------------------------------------------------------' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
