On 8 January 2014 11:47, Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: > I have always felt that the parent-goes-away-leaving-the-child-running > scenario was the *ix substitution for what we can do with XCTL in z/OS > systems. > > But (as usual) that might just be my wrong-headed view of the situation.
I'm not so sure. While the implementors of z/OS UNIX have done a remarkable job of fusing MVS and UNIX behaviour, there are limits. I think of UNIX exec() as the closest thing to MVS XCTL. But UNIX processes are different; the parent can do the UNIX classic fork() followed by exec() done by the new child, or the similar spawn(), in each case leaving a parent and a child. Each can "do their own thing" (which could include further exec()s) for as long as they like, and then either can terminate independent of the other. While there may well be signals and default behaviours to worry about, the result can be that the child runs while the parent is gone. There is nothing like this in the case of MVS TCBs. If the parent ends, the child abends. Under some circumstances the abend can be caught, but life cannot continue without the parent. TonyH. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
