×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
I infer the stated expectation meant to suggest [to concur with Rob]
that a Restore, not a Save, would "affect the change date." Regardless,
in an earlier post I hope to have explained some relationship of Save
Changed Objects with Change Dates.... Basically that a restore effects a
new change date-time for an object, but that a save should not affect
[with possible exception being conversions; after a release upgrade, not
after PTF applications] the actual "change date" of an object. A full
SAVLIB will only discard its recorded list of changed objects, yet any
object change dates remain the same.
At least two issues may cause 'last used' to be incomplete, when
referenced as the only tested attribute, both because usage may have
been reset. An object may have had its usage data reset explicitly by
CHGOBJD, or implicitly by a scratch-restore; i.e. the 'last used'
attributes of the object will indicate that it has never been used.
Thus an object /refresh/ to a target system appears unused, although
restored-over [e.g. data-only restores] scenarios will see the object
keep its usage information [date and count]. Both a [recently] restored
or use-reset object, which are also changed objects, are probably
expected to be _logically excluded_ from an archival or purge function.
Similarly an object recently created [perhaps duplicated] may not yet
be /used/. This is effectively the same as a scratch-restored, but
where the creation date is new versus taken from the original object.
Additionally any "use" may not be understood or inferred exactly the
same as implemented. Recall my mention of REFFLD where a database file
that is referenced as a Field Reference File might easily be inferred to
be a 'use' of the file, but where I had also stated that a 'use' was
meant to reflect the lifelong /purpose/ of the object; that I/O was
really the primary defining characteristic for 'use' of a database file.
Thus it is entirely possible [again, I have not tested], that a REFFLD
is not [yet] implemented as a usage of the referenced file.
Another example of a /problem/ with last used for a *FILE: I have
always been frustrated by a DSPSAVF being counted as a 'use'. In order
to review what library was saved in the save file, the date of the save,
etc., I could use DSPSAVF. If my purge strategy for such objects is 180
days after last use *or* for example that the saved library has since
been saved elsewhere, then if the library has not since been saved but
the prior last-used was 100 days ago, my request to DSPSAVF has just
given the object a free 100 day extension [since that request counted
the object as being used].
Regards, Chuck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.