Portal | Manuals | References | Downloads | Info | Programs | JCLs | Master the Mainframes
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index
 
Register
 
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index Mainframe: Search IBM Mainframe Forum: FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in
 

 

Start a new transaction instead of doing an XCTL

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> CICS
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:51 pm    Post subject: Start a new transaction instead of doing an XCTL
Reply with quote

if i start a new transaction instead of doing an XCTL, that means the starter transaction will continue to run which might cause performance issues, so always we should not use START when we can use XCTL. Please confirm my understanding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 7936
Location: Bellevue, IA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:01 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

No, it depends on your application requirements. There are times when you want to start a transaction (for example, if you're starting an interval controlled transaction which is going to run unattached to a terminal), and there are times when you want to transfer control to another program. They both are needed, and they both serve their own unique purpose in CICS.

And unless you've got some really, really ugly transaction programs, CICS performance typically is pretty low on the priority list. Worry about the business logic and application design first, then if there's performance issues deal with them at the appropriate time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:20 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

yes i undertand that START is must for starting a background transaction, but i mean like START with terminal id(current terminal) specified and without time interval would be same as doing XCTL, however since a start would not end the previous transaction so one should not use START in such a given scenario.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CICS Guy

Senior Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 2150
Location: At my coffee table

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Kevin Dcosta wrote:
yes i undertand that START is must for starting a background transaction, but i mean like START with terminal id(current terminal) specified and without time interval would be same as doing XCTL,.
Not the same, the started transaction will not start until the current transaction completes and frees the terminal.
Quote:
however since a start would not end the previous transaction so one should not use START in such a given scenario
Actually, the other way around, the XCTL does not end the current transaction....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:50 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
Actually, the other way around, the XCTL does not end the current transaction....

So how should one decide between XCTL and START given the above scenario of START with terminal id(current terminal) specified and without time interval.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CICS Guy

Senior Member


Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 2150
Location: At my coffee table

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Generally, the start is used across terminal write/reads of pseudo-conversational transactions, but the RETURN with the next transid is usually the choice for this.
The xctl is used to transfer the current transaction from one program to another.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:17 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Thanks a lot...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:21 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

i was trying to goback to the previous screen, i tried doing start transid it didnt work , i tried doing xctl to the previous screen it didnt work but return with immediate worked. is there something that i have missed while defining the transactions ??? please help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martin9

Active User


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 287
Location: Basel, Switzerland

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:49 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

depending on your need,
you are able to do both ways...

if your starting transaction must finish, then let it finish!
or start an asynchronous task omitting the terminal...
you have all the possibilities, just how you need it...
if you get any perfomance problems then rethink your
design...

anyway in the last post:
try the RETURN TRANSACTION with IMMEDIATE...

regards,
martin9
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 7936
Location: Bellevue, IA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Application logic is needed ... something told the application to display the map, so you need to reset that field or fields and go back to the program. Unlike a PC, there's no memory of previous screens in a CICS region so there's no going back unless the application logic supports it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:39 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

i have the application logic in the previous program where i intend to transfer the control , my issue is that the control does not get transferred until i do return-immediate, xctl and start-termid should also work but the control remains in the same module.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 7936
Location: Bellevue, IA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:52 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

As previously mentioned, start-termid won't display the map until the current transaction that is tied to the screen ends. XCTL might be having the same issue -- you might want to run through the code using CEDF to check out what's going on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin Dcosta

New User


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Location: Hyderabad

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:44 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

sorry to bother you all, i was coding the transid when giving start incorrectly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> CICS All times are GMT + 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 

Search our Forum:

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Posted
No new posts CICS transaction slow response time vasanthz All Other Mainframe Topics 3 Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:31 am
No new posts CICS START AND CANCEL blayek CICS 1 Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:27 am
No new posts Detailed Transaction History report f... Kyle Carroll CICS 5 Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:42 am
No new posts How to calculate an specific transact... lind sh CICS 2 Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:20 pm
No new posts Event-driven programming (BTS) VS (ST... Rohit Umarjikar CICS 2 Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:05 am


Facebook
Back to Top
 
Mainframe Wiki | Forum Rules | Bookmarks | Subscriptions | FAQ | Tutorials | Contact Us