Re: how to RCVMSG and NOT get CPF9999

I agree that simpler is better - I will be sure to remember the CPF9999 scenario.

The KB technique has been so useful for me, though, that it seemed worth at least mentioning for use in more complex scenarios - especially as we run into situations where we are not in the same stack, which seems more and more the possibility. Namely, when I've been able to see a message in the joblog that I can't receive with RCVMSG.

Vern

On 1/29/2013 4:40 PM, CRPence wrote:

On 29 Jan 2013 14:07, Vernon Hamberg wrote:

<<SNIP>>

Chuck, I'm sure you're familiar with this KB - I forget the link -
and it might be overkill for this situation.

To find the KB - it is doc #28942837 - title is "Receiving Messages
from the Joblog after the Program Is off the Callstack"

The situation presented by the OP is handling a *FC for a prior
exception which gave rise to the CPF9999 [aka *FC]; very specifically.
Thus the preceding exception was to the *SAME program stack. Using the
technique in that KB article is hardly appropriate as compared to the
ultra-simple resolution of issuing one RCVMSG MSGTYPE(*EXCP) RMV(*YES)
followed by a RCVMSG MSGTYPE(*EXCP). There seems little reason to
complicate the scenario for the OP with that [or changing to use MONMSG
CPF0000, or even something like the Resend Exception Message API, even
if that might be reasonably be inferred as the desired]; i.e. better to
stick with the most succinct resolution for the exact code given.?