RE:

["Debbie Panco" <dpanco43@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vern,
  The problem that you speak of is when you have libraries qualified in
CL's etc.  We don't have any of those as we converted them already a
long time ago.  So, no that is not the problem.  Thanks anyway.

Debbie Panco
Senior Systems Analyst / Project Leader
United Consumer Financial Services
865 Bassett Road
Westlake, Ohio 44142
dpanco43@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
440-835-6674


-----Original Message-----
From:   midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vern Hamberg
Sent:   Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:45 PM
To:     Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject:        Re:

Isn't the problem with qualified PFILEs in LF38 logicals? The format there
is
     FILE.LIBRARY
instead of
     LIBRARY/FILE

Vern

At 10:30 PM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>Debbie,
>
>I'm not sure what the difference is but, pf38 and lf38 objects work just
>like regular 400 physicals and logicals.  i'm currently working on a box
>that has a ton of these - and they do not have QSYS38 in their library
>list.
>
>Although recently, they upgraded to V5R1, and several queries that used
>LF38 files blew up and would only work if the logicals were recompiled.
>But, only some LF38 files needed to be recompiled.  others worked fine.
>
>I believe your biggest problem will be the program objects with 38
>attributes.
>
>hth,
>
>Rick


_______________________________________________
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,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.