Scott summarized his viewpoints with the following, which my statement came
from...
" 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."
So maybe I should instead respond with this: Scott, do you think QTEMP
should NOT be used for temporary objects that a programmer wants to have
auto-cleaned-up at the end of the job? I thought there were good points on
why a vendor wouldn't want to use QTEMP. Many times I rely on QTEMP when I
am doing professional services contracts, and so far it has worked quite
well for me. I would chalk QTEMP usage up to "it depends" and "use it to
your benefit, but understand the drawbacks".
Thoughts?
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: QTEMP not in library list
Aaron,
You're right, you haven't been following this thread. :-)
No one is saying the use of QTEMP is evil.
What they are debating is what scenarios should QTEMP be in the library
list, if any. Reread the thread.
Rob Berendt
midrange.com
