Re: differences between PF38, LF38 and PF, LF files

I've never seen or heard of any difference in performance.

AFAIK, the only diference is in the DDS source syntax.  Most notably the
library qualifier on keywords that accept a library (ie. PFILE, REF, REFFLD
etc.).   This the same issue with other S/38 object types (ie. CMD38, CLP38
and DSPF38) as well.

You'll need to switch them to native source types (PF, LF) if want to
utilize any of the AS/400 DDS enhancements.

One reason for dropping the 38 source types is because of the nuisance with
the batch compiling them.   Unlike with native types, PDM submits S/38
objects for compile using the JOBD's library list (not *CURRENT).


Keith


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rick.baird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:36 AM
Subject: differences between PF38, LF38 and PF, LF files


> hey all,
>
> Is there any real difference between existing physical/logical files with
> attributes LF38, PF38 and LF, PF?
>
> I'm specifically wondering about performance, or any other appreciable
> differences.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick