|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
chaoj
Active User
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Dalian
|
|
|
|
| PeterHolland wrote: |
You should have asked me before  |
I go through all my topic and , it seems no  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chaoj
Active User
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Dalian
|
|
|
|
| PeterHolland wrote: |
A wild gues, maybe because of this
| Code: |
ADDRESS TSO "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
|
, instead of this
|
Share my trace log for subcom
1st time run
| Code: |
29 *-* ADDRESS TSO "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
>>> "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
+++ RC(1) +++
30 *-* IF RC
*-* THEN
31 *-* S_RC = RXSUBCOMM('ADD','DSNREXX','DSNREXX')
32 *-* ADDRESS DSNREXX "CONNECT SUN"
>>> "CONNECT SUN"
33 *-* TRACE OFF
|
2nd time run
| Code: |
29 *-* ADDRESS TSO "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
>>> "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
30 *-* IF RC
32 *-* ADDRESS DSNREXX "CONNECT SUN"
>>> "CONNECT SUN"
33 *-* TRACE OFF
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chaoj
Active User
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Dalian
|
|
|
|
| PeterHolland wrote: |
A wild gues, maybe because of this
| Code: |
ADDRESS TSO "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
|
, instead of this
|
Then I change to "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
1st time run
| Code: |
29 *-* "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
>>> "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
+++ RC(1) +++
30 *-* IF RC
*-* THEN
31 *-* S_RC = RXSUBCOMM('ADD','DSNREXX','DSNREXX')
32 *-* ADDRESS DSNREXX "CONNECT SUN"
>>> "CONNECT SUN"
33 *-* TRACE OFF
|
2nd time run
| Code: |
29 *-* "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
>>> "SUBCOM DSNREXX"
30 *-* IF RC
32 *-* ADDRESS DSNREXX "CONNECT SUN"
>>> "CONNECT SUN"
33 *-* TRACE OFF
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Akatsukami
Global Moderator
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 1788
Location: Bloomington, IL
|
|
|
|
SUBCOM returns zero to indicate that the named environment (DSNREXX, in this case) exists, and one to indicate that it doesn't. You are apparently not deleting the DSNREXX environment when you are finished.
Note that SUBCOM only detects the existence of an environment (more strictly, the existence of a row with that name in the command environment table), it does not validate it. I have difficulty believing that DSNREXX is doing significantly more validation when addressed via a preexisting row, but perhaps that is what is causing the delay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
