RE: Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count

["Bale, Dan" <DBale@xxxxxxxx>]

Well, re: #3, I _did_ specify AS/400-to-AS/400.  <g>

But, otherwise, it is my uneducated guess that whenever I can use FTP for
AS/400-to-AS/400 object transfers, I can also use the SAVRSTOBJ command.
Your #2 makes it sound like that is not the case.

You and I agree on using the "right tool for the job".  How would this
affect your #1?

- Dan Bale

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric.delong@pmsi-services.com [SMTP:eric.delong@pmsi-services.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 3:52 PM
> To:   MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      Re[2]: Correlating *SAVF "records" to FTP job I/O count 
> 
>      Hmmm, I believe this definitely fits the "right tool for the job" 
>      category. Some thoughts on why NOT to use SAVRSTxxx commands:
>      
>      1. More shops going fully TCP/IP.
>      2. Need to transmit to remote host via the internet.
>      3. Need to transmit to non-as400 hosts as well.
>      
>      Don't get me wrong, the SAVRSTxxx commands are great timesavers, 
>      given the proper environment. They aren't, however, your one-stop 
>      solution to file/object distribution. 
>      
>      jmo,
>      eric.delong@pmsi-services.com
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> 
> So, I don't get it.  Why would anyone choose using FTP to transmit objects
> 
> across AS/400s over SAVRSTOBJ?
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---