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]