IIRC the "LWI" [component; ¿either LightWeight Infrastructure or
Lightweight Web Infrastructure?] naming was the original moniker for
what became known as IAS [¿Integrated Application Server?]; web
search results support my recollection. FWiW: the component naming
does not change, simply to match an eventual [or new] "external"
naming for the feature it implements.
A spooled joblog showing the "job submitted" message would identify
the program that did that;
e.g. the completion message sent to QTOCxxxx. The spooled joblog
for the submitted job would show details about the WM that
defined\started the batch job.
Presumably the "backup job" is a utility that issues the ENDTCPSVR,
as a defaulted action of that utility, perhaps limited to what type
of SAV activity was requested to be performed, or perhaps instead as
a user-configured\requested action, and then that backup feature
performs some SAVxxx activities.?
I have no idea why a submitted job would be the implementation for the ENTTCPSVR command to effect part of its work;...
However at some point the OS established both the QSYSNOMAX Job Queue...
and the QSYSWRK Subsystem Description
I would not be surprised that a response from IBM would suggest that
this specific WM path should not be inhibited; i.e. holding the work
within that path\routing is considered a usage issue. However one
might wonder it that were the intention, then why would HLDJOBQ even
be allowed against that JOBQ object name.?
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact