Re: QTEMP position in library list

Hi Peter

Depends on how one uses library lists - does a shop take advantage of the flexibility of library lists. Qualifying objects? We pretty much live by, don't ever qualify objects.

So it is a personal or local choice, which standard of behavior is used in your shop, in the shop in the company down the street, across the country, across the pond - whatever.

Does qualifying an object say to you, always, that it is in QTEMP? I mean, we use CPYF to make a copy in QTEMP - have to qualify that, of course - from then on, it's *LIBL.

No right answer, methinks - IBM do not seem to weigh heavily in one of the other that I could see.

Regards
Vern

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dow" <petercdow@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 3:14:20 PM
Subject: Re: QTEMP position in library list

Hi Vern,

Yes, I can see that with existing systems, no need to rock the boat.

But if all references to the work file are qualified to QTEMP, it
wouldn't matter that there was an empty copy in a permanent library.

--
*Peter Dow* /
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 793-9050
petercdow@xxxxxxxxx
pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

/
On 7/13/2022 12:40 PM, Vern Hamberg via MIDRANGE-L wrote:

Hi Peter

(Long time replying - email provider kept telling me i had unwanted content in the email - not true!!)


We have work files that sit empty in permanent libraries. A copy is made into QTEMP to avoid contention when different users are using the same application. Long-time practice on these systems, I think.

Cheers
Vern

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dow"<petercdow@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion"<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 4:47:28 PM
Subject: Re: QTEMP position in library list

Now there's a thought. Why have QTEMP in the library list at all except
for testing?  If you need a file or object in QTEMP for production,
qualify any reference to it.


On 7/1/2022 12:37 PM, Rob Berendt wrote:

Honestly I would think that for testing issues you can change that on the fly in an interactive job, or use a test job description with an alternative library list.

Rob Berendt