Ed, I'm glad other, sharper "problem vultures" have spotted the two - so far - flaws in the original code. But the matter here is whether issuing a WAIT in a CICS transaction at all is "a good thing" or not.
In the old days, the early seventies when I first came across CICS, issuing a WAIT in a CICS transaction would have been suicide for CICS. This is because it relied upon the famous "multiple wait" to schedule all transactions under one operating system task, a construction all who had struggled with BTAM programming had had to learn the hard way (for disk access you could fudge it and claim it was fast enough anyhow not to bother joining the "multiple wait"). What the situation is lately - which, in my terms with regard to CICS, is from the early eighties to now - I have very little idea. Again, thinking about those early days of CICS, having to delay within a transaction would have meant splitting the transaction into two at the point of the delay and then arranging to schedule the second part using some CICS function I really can't recall now. It's just the principle that remains burned in my memory. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Finnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> Sent: Saturday, 25 March, 2006 6:04 PM Subject: Re: CICS down after transaction exec wait macro. > > In a message dated 3/25/2006 10:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Isn't WAITing in a CICS transaction frowned upon? > > > > >> > Strictly verbotten in every shop I've ever been in, but there are always > exceptions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
