hi,
my requirement is as given below:
1) Main sequencer consists of 4 jobs.
2)Sequential file is the source in all the 4 jobs.
3)The first job is performing Add process
4)The second job is performing update process
5)In the update process, i am reading the records from the sequential file source. In the transformer i ll check some conditions..based on that some records, i need to do add process again...
Instead of repeating the entire stages which performs add process here, whats teh best way which i can follow?
Please give any other solution other than using Shared container..
Thanks
Reusing the jobs
Moderators: chulett, rschirm, roy
Reusing the jobs
pandeeswaran
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:24 pm
-
- Participant
- Posts: 54607
- Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:52 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
Well, "why not shared container" as a starter? This is the ultimate re-usable component.
Given that you're on such an old version and using server edition to boot, you don't have many options apart from File > Save As to make clones of a job design and modify the clones.
As you get into version 8 and/or parallel jobs, you get more reusability options.
Given that you're on such an old version and using server edition to boot, you don't have many options apart from File > Save As to make clones of a job design and modify the clones.
As you get into version 8 and/or parallel jobs, you get more reusability options.
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.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:14 am
- Location: Bangalore
when you add a shared container to your job the code of the container gets fused into the job so if you are having multiple jobs using the same share container running at the same time it should not create any problem.
If there would have been any such problem then the name "shared container" would be inappropriate for it
If there would have been any such problem then the name "shared container" would be inappropriate for it