|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
radhakrishnan82
Active User
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 435
Location: chennai, India
|
|
|
|
Can you please help me on the below reqmt.
Transactions being worked on by a user should be locked for selection by another user.
| Code: |
| deleted to get rid of sensitive info |
Once selected the above transaction, then its XCTL to the below screen.Accordingy to the requirement the selection should not be possible for the second User.
Accordingy to the requirement the selection should not be possible for the second User.
| Code: |
| deleted to get rid of sensitive info |
IN CICS program,
| Code: |
IF MRSEL1I EQUAL 'S'
MOVE WS-TRAN-AMT1 TO WS-TRAN-AMT
MOVE WS-PROC-DATE1 TO WS-PROC-DATE
MOVE WS-RCV-ACCT-NO1 TO WS-RCV-ACCT-NO
MOVE WS-RCV-NAME TO WS-RCV-NAME
MOVE WS-REF-NO1 TO WS-REF-NO
MOVE WS-SND-ACCT-NO1 TO WS-SND-ACCT-NO
MOVE WS-SND-NAME1 TO WS-SND-NAME
PERFORM VARYING MR-INDEX FROM 1 BY 1
similarly moving to commarea for other 2 selections below(IF 3 rows/transaction populated in the screen).
IF MRSEL2I EQUAL 'S'
IF MRSEL3I EQUAL 'S'
After the selection, the below para is executed to move to the next screen.
PERFORM 9100-XCTL-TO-MRQD
THRU 9100-EXIT |
If I select any one of the 3 rows populated, then the other users should be blocked to select the same record until the previous user came out of the selection. I am not sure whether I can use ENQ to block one selection of record. Can anyone help me how should I do this?
regards,
krishnan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bill O'Boyle
CICS Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 2501
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
|
|
|
|
I don't have an answer to your requirement at the moment. But, I hope the information you've provided is NOT REAL! If it is, contact one of the Moderators immediately with substitution data.
Regardless as to how benign you may perceive this data, it does belong to someone.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
I looked at the StartingTopic , it will take too long to go thru 'data obfuscation'
I'll delete the CODE tagged snippets and ask the TS to provide proper obscured data
even if a properly explained environment/requirement should not need any company related data/screen samples/examples |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radhakrishnan82
Active User
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 435
Location: chennai, India
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| But, I hope the information you've provided is NOT REAL! |
Bill,
The info I have provided is my requirement. It is not unreal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8696
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
radhakrishnan82, Bill was not referring to your requirement -- he was talking about not posting live data for the entire world to see. If you have that much trouble understanding the difference between data and requirement, I seriously doubt we'll be able to help you much. Furthermore, your requirement is not at all clear. For example, when you say
| Quote: |
| Transactions being worked on by a user should be locked for selection by another user. |
do you mean the CICS transaction should not start for a second user, or do you mean a second user should not be able to get to the same data? If the first, you might be able to dynamically disable the transaction while your first program is running, but the design of such a process is not recommended since it has a lot of negative impacts if, for example, your transaction failed before re-enabling. And many sites prohibit such coding, anyway. If the second, just set a flag in the data file to say the record is being worked and check the flag every time the transaction attempts to retrieve data. ENQ would not be the way to do this since it could have severe impacts -- for example, VSAM locks at the CI level not the record level so you could have many more records impacted than just the ones being changed if you use a system level locking method. Is your input coming from a data base or a VSAM file? You'll probably need a flag in each record (or row) to denote the data is being worked on -- system mechanisms to handle this would not be effective, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
