Re: CPYF vs. CRTDUPOBJ

Hi James
One of the "pitfalls" to using CRTDUPOBJ is that you have to have authority
to use that command
I found out much to my dismay that a lowly *USER does NOT have the
authority


Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Distribution
E:AShore@xxxxxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill

midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/07/2009 11:33:35 AM:

One of our applications requires one or more workfiles in QTEMP.
Currently, those workfiles are created by CPYFing an empty "seed"
version of the file located in the application directory.

Yesterday, we discovered that a long-unexplained intermittent glitch was
a side effect of an OVRDBF, which caused workfiles to be copied from an
existing (and non-empty) copy in QTEMP, instead of from the empty "seed"
file.

I've put in a remedy (rearranging things to CLRPFM the workfile even if
it's freshly generated, instead of only doing it if it had already been
used in the job), but I see that CRTDUPOBJ (unlike CPYF) has the ability
to create a guaranteed-empty copy of a file. Obviously, this would be
the more elegant solution, but it raises some questions:

1) Does copying a file into QTEMP with a CRTDUPOBJ potentially raise any
authority issues that doing it with a CPYF doesn't?

2) Which option is faster?

3) I know empirically that an OVRDBF will trump any qualification on a
CPYF; what about CRTDUPOBJ?

--
JHHL
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.