Re: What Actually Causes Deadlock

dawn wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>

>>Back in the 1970's (and the 1960's too, I guess) every mainframe
>>application programmer who used IBM CICS or IMS DC was aware of that
>>terse bullet list in the wikipedia and were careful to order their
>>accesses, whether they were to dbms, file, TP channel or abstact memory
>>in some agreed-upon order.

I didn't remember that acronym, perhaps because of the L I thought it couldn't have been a code. The thing is, and which I should have mentioned in the first place, is that although the old-timers knew what to do, they nearly always did it because of practical experience. They would have saved much time and maybe done better stuff if they were privy to any theory, but making that available was counter to the prosperity of the monopolies of those times, such as IBM. Today there are others with different agendas but similar motives.

(In fact, as some of the latest messages back up, the field of controlling interests, eg., big consulting companies, has gotten bigger.   I'm surprised nobody mentioned that most corporations of any size, including government departments, are part of this, individuals with decision power in cahoots with the consultancies even though that denies their responsibilities to their employers and it is basically a sign of a larger system gone wrong. A hundred years ago, corruption would have been the well-understood word for this, but today, lawyers and near-sighted judges have given that word a very narrow grain.)

p Received on Sat Dec 16 2006 - 02:19:51 CET