On 28 Mar 2007 04:21:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/24/2007 > at 10:43 AM, Clark Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>This may relate to the user-surly approach of a lot of mainframe >>implementation. People should know enough not submit a job / start a >>task when a library is being updated. Similarly people should >>memorize the legal list of job classes for each set of resource >>requirements. It is easier to fail the job in JES2 than to change >>the job class, > >In the sense that it is easier to send a passenger home for his wallet >than to let him ride for free. Job classes exist for a reason, and >automatically changing the job class would subvert those reasons. > >The original problem may be a case where the software should be moore >user friendly, but the example of job classes is nonsense. > As someone who modified an exit 6 from the CBT tape that set job class based on job requirements to meet my shop's needs, I obviously disagree vehemently. Job class is a means of assigning work. If the job class is based on job requirements known at JCL interpretation, then it is better for the organization to have the system set the job class. That way if rules change, JCL doesn't have to change. Further, it is one less piece of arcanity that the applications people have to remember in order to do their job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
