Re: CHKIN/CHKOUT -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: CHKIN/CHKOUT
From: Justin Taylor <JUSTIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:08:24 +0000
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Which is why I said, "The biggest difference being that it locks to the user rather than the job".

________________________________
From: Mark S Waterbury <mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 12:33 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CHKIN/CHKOUT

CHKOUT and CHKIN are not like ALCOBJ and DLCOBJ because ALCOBJ and
DLCOBJ are "temporary" locks that do not persist across job boundaries,
while CHKOUT and CHKIN permanently "stamp" the object with that
information, and it persists even across IPLs.

On 12/1/2017 1:18 PM, Justin Taylor wrote:
Looks to be for IFS files what ALCOBJ/DLCOBJ are for system objects. The biggest difference being that it locks to the user rather than the job.

Follow-Ups:

RE: CHKIN/CHKOUT , Jim Oberholtzer

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.