× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



I infer the stated expectation meant to suggest [to concur with Rob] that a Restore, not a Save, would "affect the change date." Regardless, in an earlier post I hope to have explained some relationship of Save Changed Objects with Change Dates.... Basically that a restore effects a new change date-time for an object, but that a save should not affect [with possible exception being conversions; after a release upgrade, not after PTF applications] the actual "change date" of an object. A full SAVLIB will only discard its recorded list of changed objects, yet any object change dates remain the same.

At least two issues may cause 'last used' to be incomplete, when referenced as the only tested attribute, both because usage may have been reset. An object may have had its usage data reset explicitly by CHGOBJD, or implicitly by a scratch-restore; i.e. the 'last used' attributes of the object will indicate that it has never been used. Thus an object /refresh/ to a target system appears unused, although restored-over [e.g. data-only restores] scenarios will see the object keep its usage information [date and count]. Both a [recently] restored or use-reset object, which are also changed objects, are probably expected to be _logically excluded_ from an archival or purge function.
Similarly an object recently created [perhaps duplicated] may not yet be /used/. This is effectively the same as a scratch-restored, but where the creation date is new versus taken from the original object.
Additionally any "use" may not be understood or inferred exactly the same as implemented. Recall my mention of REFFLD where a database file that is referenced as a Field Reference File might easily be inferred to be a 'use' of the file, but where I had also stated that a 'use' was meant to reflect the lifelong /purpose/ of the object; that I/O was really the primary defining characteristic for 'use' of a database file. Thus it is entirely possible [again, I have not tested], that a REFFLD is not [yet] implemented as a usage of the referenced file.

Another example of a /problem/ with last used for a *FILE: I have always been frustrated by a DSPSAVF being counted as a 'use'. In order to review what library was saved in the save file, the date of the save, etc., I could use DSPSAVF. If my purge strategy for such objects is 180 days after last use *or* for example that the saved library has since been saved elsewhere, then if the library has not since been saved but the prior last-used was 100 days ago, my request to DSPSAVF has just given the object a free 100 day extension [since that request counted the object as being used].

Regards, Chuck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.