Re: DSPJRN OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) and resulting record length

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/16/2011 11:44 PM, CRPence wrote:
> On 3/16/11 7:58 PM, Joe Pluta wrote:
>
>     <<SNIP>>
>
> > > That is to say, if there was a large entry that existed in the
> > > prior DSPJRN, and the same range of sequence numbers were displayed
> > > again, one should expect the same results should be seen.  I would
> > > conclude more likely that either the same range is not being
> > > displayed, some entries are being excluded from that range in the
> > > newer requests, or if the request is indeed identical each time
> > > then there was more probably a defect encountered that for some
> > > reason is no longer being exhibited.
> > >
> > > <ed: additional text was snipped>
> > Your conclusion would be incorrect, Chuck.  You're assuming the
> > contents of the journal receivers are the same and the command is
> > different. Both are bad assumptions.
> >
> > The DSPJRN commands are exactly the same.  I am comparing the results
> > of a completely unfiltered DSPJRN from yesterday and the same command
> >   executed today.
> >
> > The content of the receivers is different.  These receivers are
> > detached and deleted regularly and only a finite span of time is
> > available in the journal at any point in time.  It's quite possible
> > that the large entry was available in yesterday's receivers and not
> > today's.
> >
> > In any case, the situation is gone.  I will monitor it and if it
> > occurs again I will try to see what caused the entry.  Until then,
> > since the entry causing the problem is gone, there is no way to do
> > any further analysis.
>     Actually the conclusion would not be wrong, apparently just
> misunderstood by the reader.  A "completely unfiltered DSPJRN" is
> implicitly a different range being displayed whenever the data in the
> receiver has changed, than the range for the identical request made
> prior to the data changing.  Thus the situation is covered by "the same
> range is not being displayed" because for any change [given that the
> only method is add\send] at least one new sequence number would be
> available to the request.

Your conclusion is entirely wrong because it was based on a bad 
assumption.  I never said anything about displaying the same range.  
That was YOUR assumption, which led to YOUR erroneous conclusion.  And I 
wouldn't be calling you on it, except that you decided to opine that my 
conclusion was questionable after assuming facts not in evidence.  Ask 
questions and leave the opinion out of it, and I wouldn't be 
responding.  And now that we've gotten off the track entirely, I'll drop it.

Joe