I have always worked under this same philosophy (Qtemp at the top of the
LIBL), until I worked at a shop with HarrisData Payroll and Human Resources
modules. The HarrisData support people stated unequivocally that QTEMP must
be at the end of the libl or the HarrisData applications would not work
correctly. So when I work with HD applications I make sure the JOBDs and
LIBLs put QTEMP at the end of the list. For all other work I put QTMEP at
the top of the list. And in some cases now, I may make explicit overrides
to QTEMP objects where the environment cannot be reliably predicted.
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TheBorg
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments survey
In the [mostly JDE] shops where I have worked, the standard is that QTEMP
has always been placed at the top of the library list.
Often a work object (usually a file) is built in QTEMP by using CRTDUPOBJ to
copy the object from the permanent library into QTEMP and the program will
use the copy of the object in QTEMP.
This will not work if QTEMP is at the bottom of the library list.
QTEMP goes where your applications and your situation needs it.
Beginning, end, middle, it does not matter as long as your environment is
expecting it in one place or another. There is no right or wrong, just
where you need it.
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects
On 9/5/2013 4:12 PM, Mike Cunningham wrote:
But, I am curious - shouldn't QTEMP be at the TOP of the liblist
(instead of at the bottom)???
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l