3 Servers Jobs Collapsed to One

roy · Post by **roy** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:53 am

Hi,
fewer jobs <> more easy maintanance and tends to make the jobs more complex.

to answer your question yes you can do it but not as strait forward as clicking a few check boxes.
you'll need to customly force this via adding dummy constraints and or using basic routines.

if you really want such complications I can provide some, just ask for it in a follow up to this post.

IMHO, breaking your flow down to small manage able jobs with a clear flow view is the best way, not alwayes suitable, but prefered.

IHTH

palmeal · Post by **palmeal** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:58 am

No need for further detail Roy - I just wondered if I was missing something simple. I'll live with the extra number of server jobs.
Thanks for the quick answer.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:21 am

Have you investigated job sequences?

That would give you your "way to control the execution order on a Server job and/or insert wait conditions" with the greatest of ease. It could be as simple as three dependent Job Activities.

palmeal · Post by **palmeal** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:28 am

Thanks Ray - I currently have a job sequence and a Server Job with JCL that do this.
I was just trying to have less components to manage as this sort of scenario will occur many times in the project that I am working on.

ray.wurlod · Post by **ray.wurlod** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:48 pm

OK, you can compress everything into one job, making use of the fact that a passive stage can not open its outputs until all its inputs are closed.
For example:

Code: Select all

Part1  ---->  SeqFile  ---->  Part2  ---->  SeqFile  ---->  Part3

But I'd still advocate separate componentry (if pieces are identical put them in Shared Containers for re-use). It's easier to maintain in the long run, easier to troubleshoot, easier to modify and easier to test. Apply the KISS principle!