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

["Keith Carpenter" <CarpCon@xxxxxxx>]

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