>>> On 10/2/2009 at 1:12 PM, in message <[email protected]>, Howard Brazee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 Oct 2009 11:53:39 -0700, [email protected] (Mark Jacobs) > wrote: > >>As you correctly surmised the default to delay duplicate jobnames is due >>to the way it's always worked. I assume that it was used as a very >>simple job scheduling mechanism. > > I worked at a place that used CLISTs to submit jobs - and it checked > for duplicate job names. I thought that was useful in case we > accidentally submitted the same job twice. Or wanted the two jobs to > run together.
My thought for intentional single threading (even with different job names) is to have a single initiator that is related to one class (or more than one, I suppose) that has no other initiators assigned to it. The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
