On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:47:58 -0500, Farley, Peter x23353 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. > Ummm... Not quite. *IX supports the scenario:
a) Parent runs for a while, then fork()s child. b) Parent and child run concurrently and cooperatively for a while. c) Parent-goes-away-leaving-the-child-running. XCTL fails to support (b) because the parent goes away instantly. ATTACH fails to support (c) because the child can't outlive the parent. (But why not? Silly design. Perhaps none of the OS/360 designers were orphans, so the concept never occurred to them.) In *IX, if the parent goes away, the grandparent adopts the child. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
