Hi,
I have a couple of jobs need to be executed sequentially but i am not supposed to use sequencer is there any alternative way to perform the control flow of jobs.
Thanks in Advance
Sirish.
Alternate way without using sequencer
Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy
-
- Participant
- Posts: 3337
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Alternate way without using sequencer
Is this another interview question ?sirishds wrote:I have a couple of jobs need to be executed sequentially but i am not supposed to use sequencer is there any alternative way to perform the control flow of jobs..
Do not know whether it is just me, but your questions appear to point towards specific properties by constraining all general and default options, which is typical of interviews.
-
- Participant
- Posts: 54607
- Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
-
- Participant
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: bangalore
-
- Participant
- Posts: 54607
- Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
A batch IS a sequence, except for having no GUI and a specific naming convention. Similarly a job control routine IS a sequence, except for having no GUI.
Of course the really smart answer is to use a sequence.
A sequence is not a sequencer. A sequencer makes an "any/all" decision about which of its inputs has fired.
Of course the really smart answer is to use a sequence.
A sequence is not a sequencer. A sequencer makes an "any/all" decision about which of its inputs has fired.
IBM Software Services Group
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.
Any contribution to this forum is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect any position that IBM may hold.