Re: QUSLFLD

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

This sounds like an attempt at security by obscurity.  If you don't let
people know what libraries, files and fields are on the system then they
won't try so hard to hack into others data.

It is my understanding that IBM put this file on the system for use in
Client/Server applications (remember those?)  Attempts to tighten down this
file may have implications unless IBM worked around and has some adopted
method for C/S to get pertinent information from this file.

Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



                    Martin Rowe
                    <martin@dbg400.ne       To:     rpg400-l@midrange.com
                    t>                      cc:
                    Sent by:                Fax to:
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi       Subject:     Re: QUSLFLD
                    drange.com


                    01/04/2002 11:17
                    AM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






On Fri, 2002-01-04 at 16:06, rob@dekko.com wrote:
>
> My stock and standard reply to this is that why use DSPFFD or QUSLFLD
when
> you can use traditional i/o against the file QSYS/QADBIFLD to get this
> information?
>
> Rob Berendt

Rob

I would have agreed with you until my code failed to compile on John
Ross' Netshare400 box. No user access to QADBIFLD :( I've had reports
from others installing my code that this was a problem for them as well.
That's why I switched to QUSLFLD - well, that and the chance to learn
something new :)

Regards, Martin