Re: monmsg question

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Simon,

 You bring up a good scenario here.  Long running batch jobs can be 
quite complex.  Going into "recovery" mode might be easier said than 
done.  Some of the many possible area to take into consideration are: 
*LDA, SWS setting, commitment control, overrides, activation groups, 
job date retention, *LIBL, any user selected input, communications, etc.

 While there's nothing in the list that can't be overcome, there's 
potentially a *lot* to save and a lot of code to handle the 
restore.  I also find that realistically it's easier for an operator 
to overlook an informational type message vs. one that screams for attention.

 I certainly agree in principle w/ your observations.  I'm just 
putting out a contrasting thought regarding trying to handle 
everything in a complex, long batch job.

 -mark



At 11/18/06 04:31 PM, you wrote:

> (I'll bet someone will throw up the example of a long running batch job
> that crashes because of a missing something-or-other and because it
> does not have ANY exception handling or at least does not have a global
> exception handler the default exception handler kicks in, the missing
> something-or-other can be created/added/restored/whatever, and the job
> allowed to continue. I agree that's nice but not necessary. A properly
> written long-running process will have a restart facility so it can
> pick up close to where the crash occurred.)