I must admit, I also thought there was an issue with using multiple
journals in the same transaction...
But I see only a recommendation:
- To simplify recovery, assign objects that are used together in the
same application to the same journal.
Along with a confirmation of what you indicated
- Files opened under the same commitment definition within a job can be
journaled to different journals. In commitment control, each journal is
considered a local location.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:30 PM, CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20-Feb-2014 11:41 -0800, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
There are those who will argue that putting the journals and
receivers into the same library as their data also ensures this.
That's all well and good until you start getting cross library
transactions you want to use commitment control on.
I make a sale. I want it to update customer data in ARLIB. I also
want it to update salesperson data in CRMLIB. And I want to use
commitment control. If the operation fails it should roll back the
previously written data. Hard to do when your data resides in two
different journals and journal receivers.
While there may be other\valid reason(s) to avoid having the journal
reside in the same library as the data, the above example does not
present a valid reason. The implicit or explicit ROLLBACK or a COMMIT
functions just fine in the scenario that is described.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives