On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:38:41 -0400, Alan Altmark <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com > wrote:
>On Wednesday, 03/25/2009 at 12:05 EDT, Alan Ackerman ><alan.acker...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Can someone explain this restriction to me. If I have accessed a >> file mode directory, doesn't the SFS server know that? > >ACCESS of a filecontrol directory doesn't really "access" anything. CMS >reads the directory and caches the information, then closes the director y. > That same sequence could just an app making CSL calls. So, no, the >server doesn't know you've accessed a filecontrol directory. > >ACCESS of a dircontrol directory is different since you have a consisten t >(fixed) ACCESS-to-RELEASE view of the file content. The SFS server has to >maintain a "bookmark" for you, and so must keep track of ACCESS and >RELEASE. > >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott >======================== ========================= ========== ============== I was under the impression (from something I read here) that the cached C MS list of files was updated when someone changed files on the directory. For SFS to inform CM S of this would required that it know that CMS had it accessed. If this isn't what happen s, I'll have to try to find that previous discussion and attempt to understand it again. If I access a file-control directory and issue LISTFILE * * fm, then some one adds or deletes a file on the directory and I issue LISTFILE * * fm again, does it show the diff erence? (I think it does.) If so, how? Does it reload the entire file list each time from the SFS serve r? If so, what is the value of caching the list? Same question for a dircontrol directory. (I suspect it doesn't show the difference.) I have many years of heavy use of file control directories, but hardly an y with dircontrol directories. To my mind, file control directories behave right, and make it much easier to write applications. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
