Kill Controlling job

NEO · Post by **NEO** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:00 am

Hi,
I have a server job that is being called by a sequencer. I want to kill/Abort or stop the calling sequencer from the server job if a particular condition is not met in the server job. What would be the best way to do this ?
Thanks.

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:44 am

You don't want to do that. Either abort the Server job and then use a Terminator stage to stop the Sequence, or build something to detect this 'condition' in your Server job (userstatus, perhaps? DSGetLinkInfo? depends on the nature of this condition) and do the same. Both downstream of the Job Activity. Or let the Sequence 'automatically handle activities that fail' based on your triggers.

NEO · Post by **NEO** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:23 am

Ideally I wouldnt want to, but there are a lot of existing sequencers that need to be changed in that case. There is a common multiple instance job that runs in many sequencers and by aborting the sequence by killing it from the multiple instance server job will avoid me having to change all the sequencers. If I could deviate from the best pratices for the greater good of time saved with changing legacy jobs, what would be the best approach ?

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:40 pm

The best approach is to change all the job sequences that need changing.

chulett · Post by **chulett** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:49 pm

Agree. Take your lumps and do it right. Curious, how many is 'a lot'?

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:54 pm

Curious how there's never time to do it right, necessitating allocation of more time to do it again.

NEO · Post by **NEO** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:02 am

I have added additonal functionality to an existing multiple instance job used in all our sequencers which was not foreseen as well not in the scope of the project at the time. This new functionality put added requirements on the sequencer and I was hoping to find the least invasive procedure to be able to acheive the goals set forth. But looks like changing the sequencers is the only way out. We are talking about 120 sequencers. It shouldnt be that bad.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:49 pm

New requirement, new scope = new billable time. Easy.

Don't EVER let "them" foist a moving target on you - that way lies guaranteed project failure.