Re: Sample CL Program to Retain System Date - NOTE that BPCS no longer uses Job Date in some releases!

["Genyphyr Novak" <novakg@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

In base V8.0.00 BPCS, the default for all programs is to use the System
date, not the Job date - which is the implementation of a change requested
by many customers, since the job date was always being used in BPCS with the
'current' time, giving some bizarre time stamps if a job crossed midnight,
as well as other issues with users whose shifts started just before midnight
and crossed midnight, etc..

There is an *LDA position 456 to change to a 'J' if you want to use the job
date. Change it back to a blank if you want to return to using system date
again. This will work even if you are submitting a job from inside BPCS out
to batch, since the *LDA values from the interactive job are copied to the
batch job.

There is a BMR 60060 to bring this functionality to 6.1.0x releases.

Another reason to state the release of BPCS you are working with when making
posts to this list.

Thanks,

Genyphyr Novak
SSA GT

----- Original Message -----
From: <andrew.mckeown@cognicase.com>
To: <bpcs-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Sample CL Program to Retain System Date


>
> This is an interesting approach but I have better sudgestion.    Use the
> Job Date instead of the system Date in your year end procedures.   That
way
> the date would be guarented to be 12/31/01 even though the job doesn't
> execute until 01/01/02.    Remember that the job date is the date that is
> accociated with the job when it appears in the job queue either scheduled
> or immed, not when it starts executing.
>
> You can also put the jobq on hold, submit your year procedures on 01/01/02
> and  then use the CHGJOB to set the job date for all jobs in the job queue
> to 12/31/01.
>
> It is only when an program deliberately retrieves the system date is when
> your program is necessary.   Normally the default date retrieve is JOB
DATE
> which in the vast majority of programs that I have seen is the case.
>