Re: QSHELL SED insert

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 6:20 PM Jerry Draper <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Trying to figure this out. We live in the green screen 5250e world.

OK. I get that.

You are saying that using SSH (ie: PuTTY) is the best way to work in
PASE? Seems fine. It works.

If you're addressing me, you've missed much of the nuance that I
specifically mentioned.

SSH, with a client such as PuTTY, is the best way to work
*interactively* in PASE.

You are saying that any QP2... commands are a poor choice?

Yes. This is because the QP2* commands do not provide any meaningful
advantage these days over the QSH command for the vast, vast majority
of IBM i users. I am not completely sure they were *ever* more useful
than QSH, but they certainly are not now.

Again, this is just for the vast, vast majority of IBM i users.
Because there are still some subtle differences between QP2* and QSH,
there *could*, *conceivably*, be situations where QP2* is better
suited than QSH. But most people do not know what those differences
are, and frankly do not need to know. Most people would be served just
as well not even knowing the existence of the QP2* commands.

That being said, I did allow for the possibility that you could fall
into that tiny sliver of IBM i users for whom QP2* is the best choice
on the 5250. If this is truly the case, then you would know what the
differences are, and why you need QP2* over QSH.

We have lots of CL pgms calling QP2BATCH to shell out and run sFTP and
other BASH scripts.

To test these scripts we get into *IX using QP2TERM. It's convenient.

It's not that the QP2* commands don't "work", in terms of what they're
designed for. They do what they were made to do. That isn't why they
are a poor choice.

What is it that you need from QP2* that you cannot achieve with QSH?

John Y.