The entire "chain" of associated receivers should appear in the
"JOURNALED OBJECTS-", detached or attached, best I can recall. AFaIK
those entries are maintained to enable enforcing the rules about what
[order] receivers in a chain can be deleted using DLTJRNRCV; i.e. not
being the first recorded x/0701 [*JRNRCV] in that table\list presented
in the DMPOBJ output is a\the reason for which CPF7023 would be issued
for a request to delete the journal receiver.
Regarding the help text for "count", since "implicit" does not equate
with "hidden", I would expect either that the count would be adjusted to
not include the other journaled objects\types [those that the WRKJRNA
will not list] or that another category of objects would be available to
be listed. That is to say, I am of the opinion that the count presented
should be able to be matched with the count of the elements in
[unchanging] lists, for consistency. Why should someone be left
wondering what might be wrong for the inconsistency that is presented.?
Does someone need to know to redirect to DMPOBJ to get the whole
story? If *JRNRCV are known to be tracked in the "count", then why not
just include them in their own summary record in the "Summary by Object
Type" output? Perhaps the feature is improved in a newer release, or if
not, someone might eventually complain.?
On 21-Jun-2011 12:22 , Chris Bipes wrote:
Thank you. The dump showed the currently attached journal receiver as
one of the objects in the journal. Who would have thought.