In article <[log in to unmask]>,
  Brian Duncombe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
] Subject:      Re: SIGMPE - 95J01 Independent multiple STREAM queues
]
] Bill Lancaster said some interesting things:
] When I originally evaluated the 3k, I foolishly asked if it had a spooler
] and then checked the box (IBM'res know what a spooler is and assume the rest
] do also).  A year or so later, I joined the HP field team and submitted a
] lengthy enhancement request detailing how the IBM spooler handled multiple
] input queues and suggesting that this might be a good model.  No response
] since late 1970's.
]
] It seems to me that this would be the spooler's job, not the
] scheduler/dispatcher.  If I could stream a job and specify input-class=AP
] while at the same time, the operator could say streams 10;input-class=AP,max=1
] then when the input spooler went to get the next job to be activated, it
] could honor these specs.  Seemed a simple model to me and still does.
  { snip }
] Brian Duncombe  [log in to unmask]
 
Hmm.  In 1977 (?) I sent a list of 35 enhancement suggestions to
various people within HP.  Number 7 (verbatim) follows:
 
Add a parameter to the ":JOB" statement to permit the following:
 :JOB . . .;INCLASS=classname[,inpri within class]
where "classname" is an installation defined name.  The LIMIT
command would also have to be changed.  The intent here is to
permit a single-thread effect without blocking access to batch
processing.  An example might be:
 LIMIT 2             overall batch limit.
 LIMIT 1,SINGLE      only one job at a time in class "SINGLE".
a) Job A (a master file update) is introduced in class "SINGLE" and
   enters execution.
b) Job B (a report program that cannot run until A finishes) is
   introduced class "SINGLE" and will wait for A to finish.
c) Job C (a compile) is introduced and runs, even though B is
   waiting for A to complete. (No class was specified.)
 
The more things change  . . .
 
--
Regards  --  Tony B. Shepherd  --  [log in to unmask]