I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I might have missed
things....
I agree that QTEMP shouldn't be in the QUSRLIBL, but why not in the
JOBD?
I often use QTEMP for work spaces (like user spaces or user indexes)
that hold temporary data that only applies while the job is active. It's
data that I don't want to save, so I think QTEMP is a great space since
it's automatically cleaned up.
I never use it for update data - only for sorting, displaying, etc. (and
for working with the list API's when I want to display a list in a
subfile or a panel group).
I don't understand why QTEMP would be bad for such work spaces.
Jim
It is the quality of our work which will please God and not the
quantity.
Gandhi, Mahatma
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Klement
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2008 11:31
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: QTEMP not in library list
IMHO, it would be a very odd case where you'd want an application to
refer to QTEMP when it normally refers to a production library. In
fact, I'd wager it's a programmer trying to test code.
In that situation, the user (programmer) could easily use OVRDBF or add
QTEMP to the library list on the fly.
I don't think it's a good argument for having QTEMP in the QUSRLIBL
sysval or even in the JOBD.
Let's face it, folks... the only reason QTEMP needs to be in the library
list (aside from adding it on-the-fly for testing code) is because of
all the poorly written software out there. In this market space, poorly
written software absolutely ABOUNDS -- or, at least, that's been my
experience.
Crispin wrote:
In general, that's probably a good idea. But what if, for example, you
have
a (CL) program that does some processing on a file. The application
may want
to use that program for the QTEMP version of the file, or for an
Application
library version of the file.
midrange.com
