MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » February 2013

Re: QADBIFLD versus DSPFFD OUTPUT(*OUTFILE)



fixed

You may face security issues using QADBIFLD. If you're planning on end-user programs accessing the file you may need to have programs that adopt higher authority.

Also, you will not find files that reside in QTEMP in QADBIFLD where dspffd works against QTEMP w/out issues. Probably not an problem but something of which one should be aware.

That being said, I prefer to use the QUSLFLD API rather than dspffd output(*file). IBM gives us the tools. I say use 'em.

Troy

-----Original Message----- From: John Yeung ; John Yeung
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:49 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: QADBIFLD versus DSPFFD OUTPUT(*OUTFILE)

In another thread, someone mentioned getting field information from
QADBIFLD. I wish I'd known about this years ago. Now that I do know
about it, it seems like creating an output file from DSPFFD is a slow
and clumsy way to go about getting essentially the same information.

Are there any advantages to using DSPFFD? Right now, I can think of
two: (1) arguably friendlier for interactive use; and (2) provides
buffer lengths instead of internal lengths (which makes a difference
for date, time, and timestamp fields).

John






Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact