On 2012-02-24 18:25, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> Swifty<steve.j.swift@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:36:44 +0000, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
>> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a log per process,
>>
>> I'm thinking of things like my outbound email log, my error log and other
>> such "global" logs that can potentially be appended to by any process
>> running code that I've written. The logs are not peculiar to the process,
>> but the functions that the process uses.
>
> I'd still consider having the processes write what are in essence
> transaction requests (add this text to a log) somewhere process-specific,
> and have some other process pick those up and update the actual log. Apart
> from anything else you can circumvent the problems of having multiple
> processes simultaneously trying to append data to a single log file that
> way.
>
> It's probably be overkill but there may be a message-queue handling
> app/daemon you could use for that.
>
>
>> But anyway, the bug is that I cannot write to a file over which I have
>> write authority, and that is what should get fixed. Then everything in my
>> garden would be rosy.
>
> Escept for the multiple simultaneous access issue. IIRC (having seen your
> common routines code) you don't have your log write code do multiple
> retries, nor have a fallback if none of those work.
>
> I did do on some of the TSO/ISPF applications I wrote long ago; I also made
> sure that if someone chose to view such a log then the app would make a
> temporary copy of it (in VIO usually) and let them browse that, so that no
> viewing process would hold an ENQ on the real log for more than a tiny
> snippet of time.
>
Hi!
It is not only log files involved. All files created by a Rexx process have the same bl--dy problem.
I have been forced to either create the files outside rexx, or use a linux command to alter the permissions.

Swifty is in the right. It is a bug!

/dg