Re: separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments survey

On 09 Sep 2013 07:04, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<<SNIP>> As a general rule, I would start qualifying your QTEMP
references as such. You don't know when you may get a vendor package
that insists it be at the bottom. Or, if you're a vendor, you get a
customer that has a conflicting package that insists it be at the
bottom.

While several times prior it was mentioned, that QTEMP could be at the top, bottom, or somewhere betwixt... That is incomplete. Realize that the library QTEMP is *optional* to appear anywhere in the library list. So indeed, code that *intends* to use something in\from QTEMP would best library-qualify those references... as a strict rule vs a general rule.

To best avoid unqualified naming conflicts impacting other software outside the sphere of control, the library QTEMP would best be at the bottom of the library list or omitted entirely; of course /omitted/ is possible\reasonable only if the _other software_ is also properly coded to explicitly library-qualify its intended QTEMP references. To purposefully have unqualified name references _only within_ the user portion of the library list resolve to that name in QTEMP, the library QTEMP need only be positioned above\before whatever other library(s) that have the same-named object(s) [that should be found in the QTEMP library]. Of course more than one duplicated object name across more than one library could make choosing a specific position within the library list an impossible task, at least without the ability to achieve the desired effect by some other means such as overrides.

If there is no concern for impacting other software, and the only concern is that your own unqualified references be found in the QTEMP rather than some other library, then ensure QTEMP is at the top\beginning of the list. However be warned, both the product (PRD) portion and the current-library (CUR) element of the user library list precedes the position *FIRST... so even the so-called top of the list is neither entirely safe to avoid conflicts nor [conspicuously then] is it really the top position. QTEMP can be in neither a PRD [by design intent, not as tested\verified] nor the CUR positions.

So no matter where [or even if] the QTEMP library appears in the user portion of the library list... all the above is support for explicitly library-qualifying that which intends only to refer to an object in QTEMP... rather than *assuming* the QTEMP library will be in a position conducive to proper operation.