[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference noted::pwv50ift

Title:Kit: Note 4229; Please use NOTED::PWDOSWIN5 for V4.x server
Notice:Kit: Note 4229; Please use NOTED::PWDOSWIN5 for V4.x server
Moderator:CPEEDY::KENNEDY
Created:Fri Dec 18 1992
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:4319
Total number of notes:18478

4222.0. "f$getjpi("","JOBTYPE") poses a catch-22" by VMSNET::ALLERTON (Episode d'Azur) Fri Mar 21 1997 13:09

    I'm dealing with a customer whose AXP 6.2-1H3 system is packaged by
    a VAR to include PATHWORKS V5.0D and the VAR's 3rd party
    "multi-session" software.
    
    The customer's initial complaint was that PATHWORKS was hanging on
    startup at "PATHWORKS Mail Notification will use DECnet"
    
    Had him add the following line to sylogin.com:
    
    if f$getjpi("","JOBTYPE") .eqs. "0" then exit
    
    This resolved his PATHWORKS startup problem.  However, it introduced
    problems for his 3rd-party software.  Essentially, the software spawns
    additional sessions (essentially subprocesses) needed for the application 
    that have a jobtype of "0", but still need to transverse sylogin.  He 
    says he's not particularly happy with how the multi-session software is 
    written, but accommodation from the 3rd party vendor doesn't appear to be 
    an option.
    
    So his question is, is there an alternative lexical (that could
    differentiate PATHWORKS detached process in a unique fashion), or some 
    other approach, that might be employed to service both the needs of his
    application and his PATHWORKS startup.
    
    (I'm still waiting for his sylogin.com to arrive by mail, will post
    here when I have it)...
    
    I would think this issue may have come up before.
    
    Any assistance, suggestions appreciated.
    
    Steve
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
4222.1CPEEDY::wells.lkg.dec.com::wellsPhil WellsMon Mar 24 1997 12:595
I am not sure I understand the question, but there is a command 
procedure we shipped SYS$MANAGER:PWRK$SHOWSYS.COM which selects the 
PW processes from a SHOW SYS.

Phil
4222.2Goal is to Reduce Support CallsVMSNET::P_NUNEZMon Mar 24 1997 14:0122
    Phil,
    
    I guess, basically, what we'd like to know is why do any of the
    PATHWORKS processes have to execute SYLOGIN.COM during startup?  If
    there's a way to avoid it, we could eliminate the calls to the CSC 
    which result from PATHWORKS startup hanging because of some command in
    SYLOGIN.COM that expects terminal input (ie, $ INQUIRE).  
    
    We've never seen a case where a command in sylogin.com was necessary to
    start PATHWORKS; however, we DO get calls on commands in sylogin.com
    hanging the startup of PATHWORKS.  We resolve these with the IF
    F$GETJPI call to check for a jobtype of 0 (detached process) and exit
    if true.  But, obviously, PATHWORKS isn't the only product which uses
    detached processes, so for some customers, this workaround isn't so
    simple. 
    
    Or is it by design that one cannot start a detached process w/o 
    executing SYLOGIN.COM?
    
    thanks,
    
    Paul
4222.3YesVMSNET::L_GULICKLew GulickMon Mar 24 1997 14:3612
    
>    Or is it by design that one cannot start a detached process w/o 
>    executing SYLOGIN.COM?
    
It's part of VMS.  The detached process is a separate process and thus
invokes sylogin.com as all other processes do.

Sylogin should be able to check the process names, but this will be
highly variable and might require a lot of upkeep.  Still thinking
about this one.

Lew
4222.4VMS design 'feature'CPEEDY::VATNEPeter Vatne, PATHWORKS for UNIX Server EngineeringMon Mar 24 1997 14:3811
>    Or is it by design that one cannot start a detached process w/o 
>    executing SYLOGIN.COM?

I seem to remember from my discussions with Mike Maffa that it is
impossible to start a detached process with a CLI without executing
SYLOGIN.COM.  I also remember that we petitioned VMS for a flag in
the $CREPRC service to say "don't run SYLOGIN.COM please".  I don't
believe VMS has implemented such a flag.  You are correct that it has
there is no need for us to run SYLOGIN.COM for the PATHWORKS detached
processes, and in fact it has been a constant source of problems from
day 1.
4222.5Now we know...VMSNET::P_NUNEZMon Mar 24 1997 15:2612
    
    I at first thought it might be possible based on faint knowledge of the
    /NOCOMMAND qualifer one can specify at the Username: prompt when
    logging in interactively.
    
    However, I believe even that doesn't bypass SYLOGIN.COM, just one's
    LOGIN.COM.
    
    At least we've got something to tell customers...thanks.
    
    Paul
    
4222.6CPEEDY::wells.lkg.dec.com::wellsPhil WellsMon Mar 24 1997 16:034
Peter has is right - we requested this functionality from VMS but
they declined.

Phil
4222.7Right idea, wrong lexical - use F$GETDVIHYDRA::MOOREWindows-95%Thu Apr 03 1997 19:286
    If you want to limit commands to be executed only when the process is
    attached to a terminal, then write the procedure to test for that
    condition:
    
    $ if f$getdvi("SYS$COMMAND","trm") then .... <user interface available>