× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: PSDS System Date / InternalJobID
  • From: "Bob Crothers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:19:48 -0500
  • Importance: Normal

How about using UDATE?  That is the Job Date and does not change at
midnight.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of David Keck
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:44 PM
To: Midrange-L
Subject: PSDS System Date / InternalJobID

    I am defining a file to contain info related to interactive jobs with
one uniquely keyed record per relevant interactive job.  The info may
persist for a long time.  The natural key of JobUser/JobName/JobNumber might
in a rare circumstance yield a duplicate as the system recycles job numbers.
I would like to get some "insurance" by adding the system date that the
interactive job started on as a 4th key element.  I see a system date
defined in position 276-281 of the PSDS, but am unsure if it is the system
date from when the job started or a "copy" of the system date, which would
change across midnight.  Does anyone know for sure ?  If not I'll just test
it tonight.  However, ...
    ... If the PSDS system date changes across midnight it will not meet my
needs, in which case I am considering appropriating the Internal Job
Identifier from the Retrieve Job Info API QUSRJOBI.  This will be useful to
me assuming that the Internal Job Identifier is not a function of a
JobUser/JobName/JobNumber ... that is to say: If a particular job today is
known as BOBZ/INTJOB/123456 and has an internal identifier of "x", and a
year from now another job is created in the system as BOBZ/INTJOB/123456,
then I am assuming that the internal job identifier would be very unlikely
to also be "x" (the same as it was a year ago).  Does my assumption line up
with reality ?        Thx- Dave K.

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.