[This note has been sent to the following InterNet address(es):
hp3000-l @ utcvm.utc.edu
it has also been sent to the following JP Morgan address(es) :
      To : SSWPROD.OAS @ TRSSW
]
 
 
My $.02 on this...
 
1. Personally, I would like :LISTF AND finfo() developed ASAP.
 
2. Leave off the remote connections initially, they can come later.
 
3. Yes, it is important to have one line per Pin/Process especially for
parseing redirected output.
 
4. Prefer Spoolfile number instead of LDEV number for jobs.
 
5. Uppercase v. Lowercase...hmmmm?  Not sure about that as the HFS are going to
be lowercase anyway.
 
6. Not worth delaying the implementation for the WAIT Queue info.
 
7. Prefer NOLOCKS instead of the detail.
 
 Jon Diercks -------- mail: [log in to unmask] wrote :
 
>I'd like to see a one-line-per-JSNo format, something like this:
 
LOGFILE1.LOGGING1.SYSTEM12     (5 ACCESSORS,SHARED,3 R,2 W)
 #S12345 JOBNAME8,USER5678.ACCT5678,GROUP678  Ldev: 12345
 #S40    FRED,MGR.PAYROLL,PUB                 Ldev: 77
 #J15    JSPOOL,RSPOOL.SYS,RSPOOL             Ldev: 10
/bin/awk                       (2 ACCESSORS,SHARED,2 R)
 #S12    CATHY.DEVELOP,CI                     Ldev: 228
 #J8     JCOMP,MBETOOLS.BUILD,PUB             Ldev: 10
 
>This would be easy to parse for tricks like warning/aborting all accessors
>of a given file.  You might be able to use the space at the end of the line
>for summarized PIN data like a count of how many PINs the JSNo has accessing
>the file (1R/2W) or even mixing in your FLOCK abbreviations (3Fe/2Os/1G1).
>If not that, then I'd at least like a simple flag on the JSNo that has the
>lock that is causing other processes to wait.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with his suggestion.
 
My thanks also to Jeff for his active participation in this.
 
John Dunlop ([log in to unmask])