Re: CRTDUPOBJ - WRKOBJPDM vs WRKOBJ

[Peter Dow <petercdow@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vern gave a plausible explanation earlier in this thread, that the 
developer of PDM thought DATA(*YES) was more reasonable and hardcoded it 
in his program.

Actually, given IBM's propensity for protecting data, I'm more surprised 
that the CRTDUPOBJ default is DATA(*NO).

I have access to both v5r4 and v7r3 systems and the CRTDUPOBJ default is 
DATA(*NO).



On 5/25/2020 1:12 PM, Paul Therrien wrote:
> Understood.
>
> It's just that option 3 on WRKOBJ gives a CRTDUPOBJ DATA(*NO)
> While WRKOBJPDM gives a CRTDUPOBJ with a DATA(*YES).
> If my default for the CRTDUPOBJ command is DATA(*NO), why would the CRTDUPOBJ from WRKOBJPDM default to DATA(*YES)?
>
> We are on 7.3 - do others see this on their system?
>
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Vernon Hamberg
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:16 AM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: CRTDUPOBJ - WRKOBJPDM vs WRKOBJ
>
> Hi Paul
>
> First, the 4 version of CRTDUPOBJ are there for compiling CL to
> previous releases. The normal daily usage is the one in QSYS.
>
> Second, WRKOBJ is a basic system command, while WRKOBJPDM is a
> developer (and maybe system administrator) tool with some assumptions.
> Perhaps the designers of PDM decided that normal use of CRTDUPOBJ
> would be to include the data. It appears that WRKOBJ makes no choices
> for values, instead, it simply uses the defaults. Note that WRKOBJPDM
> doesn't give you a choice about replacing an object that already
> exists,