Re: QTEMP cleanup

I agree with you Buck!!



Thanx,

Nick



Nick Radich
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
EPC Molding, Inc.
Direct (320) 679-6683
Toll free (800) 388-2155 ext. 6683
Fax (320) 679-4516
nick_radich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/14/2008 10:46 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: QTEMP cleanup






rob wrote:

I'm not so sure I'd solely rely on the end of the job doing my cleanup

of

QTEMP objects.
I'm not saying that it won't do so. My concern is if someone injects

your

program in the middle of another job stream. For example if your

program

creates a file called TEMPFILE and now it gets added to the middle of a
job stream where there was already a TEMPFILE in QTEMP then you're

toast.

I had no idea there was this controversy over QTEMP in *LIBL. I got
burnt badly, many years ago bu the thinking that I could understand the
job by looking at individual programs in isolation. I think the last
time I injected a program into a job stream without looking at the
program in an existing job stream was 1979 or so.

All of the objections and counter-objections seem predicated on the idea
that a programmer commonly modifies a job stream (interactive jobs
included) without looking at the whole job first. Does that happen in
the real world? I'd have been fired if I made that mistake twice.