>OS/390 2.10. You are confusing the ability to have some CICS regions (usually
>test) managed by velocity goals and some by response goals.
I knew in the back of what passes for my mind, that I didn't have it quite
right.
But, that's where the no choice came from.
We had to have response goal
On Thu, 25 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So no one is confused by you choice of words ("we had"): That was a
>choice you made, not a requirement. It never was and still isn't
>required.
>
>IIRC, there was no option for goals of the region until 2.9 or 2.10.
>I w
>So no one is confused by you choice of words ("we had"): That was a
choice you made, not a requirement. It never was and still isn't
required.
IIRC, there was no option for goals of the region until 2.9 or 2.10.
I was at a CMG Canada conference where somebody mentioned that it was now
availab
On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--Original Message--
>To: Shane
>Sent: May 24, 2006 19:22
>Subject: Re: fewer/faster vs more/slower in same plex
>
>>I was actually talking about CICS trans level goals.
>Just shows one shouldn't post prior to the f
This was supposed to go to the list
--Original Message--
To: Shane
Sent: May 24, 2006 19:22
Subject: Re: fewer/faster vs more/slower in same plex
>I was actually talking about CICS trans level goals.
Just shows one shouldn't post prior to the first ingestion of caffeine of the
day.
Again
5 matches
Mail list logo
