>Plus if HP would incorporate the above KUWP features and perhaps a few other >requested enhancements to Transact, maybe HP could shock and pleasantly >surprise hard-core RAPID users by at least suggesting Transact to new >customers as a cost-effective host-based interface to ...<snip>46_11Apr199517:56:[log in to unmask]
Let me see if I can manage to send it to the entire list this time!
:Paul H. Christidis ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
::I have one concern though. If the 'backup' job gets aborted do the files
::that had their 'store bit' turned on get released? You should verify that
::before using the above.
:- If that wasn't the case, we'd had thousands of hotsites all over the
:world because of that. I'm sure store takes care of re-setting all
:store bits before it goes away.
::-) Eero Laurila - HP CSY Networking lab, NS services.
Eero!
My concern was prompted by memories from long ago of files that were left
around with their store bit set. However I feel that my follow up
contribution suggesting the usage of 'REPLY xxx, 0' instead of 'abortjob' is
safer.
By the way, the contributed sample stream files contained an error. The
following statement:
!echo setvar backuptape "!!backuptape" > *BK
^
has one too many '!' in it. I tested the contributed stream files as command
files in my session and the above was NOT noticed. In order for the above to
work in batch the line should read:
!echo setvar backuptape "!backuptape" > *BK
Regards
Paul "validator of (All code has at least one bug)" Christidis
[log in to unmask]
