Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 01/02/04
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:42:17 +1300
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bt46i8$s30$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 1-Jan-2004, "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > OK, here's how...
> >
> > Modern transaction systems can be triggered to fire off transactions at
any
> > time you want.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be "Batch" as we currently understand it. What you
> > suggest is "cyclic" ("time-not-transaction" based) is simply a
transaction
> > that must occur at a certain time.
>
> How do we currently understand "Batch"?
>
Something that is an independent job step that will repetitively process a
set of files (OPEN- PROCESS-CLOSE) ?
You are right that I may be assuming a definition of "Batch" that is not
shared by others.
> If a complex program is triggered and runs without interaction - that's
not
> batch as we currently understand it?
>
I don't see "interaction" as being necessary to the definition of either
"transaction" or "Batch". Maybe that's where we differ.
> Maybe a better question is who's "we"?
OK, I accept I didn't specifically define my usage of "Batch" <G>
Pete.
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Howard Brazee: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: Doug Scott: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|