On 5 Sep 2007 05:46:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>I fully agree with the sentiment that you should not take it upon yourself
>to free common storage that someone else obtained unless you (somehow) are
>able to know 100% that it is not used. And I fully agree that "unowned"
>does not mean "unused".
>
>Let me go a bit further, however, since "unowned" is not a category that
>the system has chosen to delineate.
>The categories that VSM supports are:
>owner=system
>owner=some-active-space identified at time of obtain
>owner gone
>
>The rule that we intended, and told everyone about, and tried
>(unsuccessfully in some cases) to get people to implement was:
>There should be no owner-gone storage.
>
>That meant that if you obtained common storage that needed to persist
>beyond the life of the obtainer, then it should not be owned by that space,
>but should be owner=system. Otherwise, you are wasting the space that the
>system must maintain in order to keep track of the fact that this now-gone
>space still owns storage.
>
>I personally would complain to a product owner who ended up with owner gone
>storage. They might blow you off, but perhaps they would (in my mind) fix
>("improve") their product. TSO/E was mentioned as one that obtains, and
>leaves stuff. Whether they do this or not, and whether they use
>OWNER=SYSTEM or not, I have no idea. But if they do that obtain, and do not
>specify OWNER=SYSTEM, then they could be prodded to update their code
If TSO/E or any other IBM component obtains storage and intentionally
leaves that storage after normal termination without specifying
OWNER=SYSTEM, is it APARable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
