×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Since the CGI request/response cycle is synchronous and performing a single CGI transaction why would steering away from QTEMP be bad ? I'm not following your time slicing theory.
Ultimately I may suggest that the developers place the additional session data into the session database we already have, but your response seems contradictory on whether QTEMP is unique or not.
You seem to advise against it, yet isn't QTEMP a hallmark of IBMi jobs and unique across jobs as we've been discussing ?
Just curious :-)
Regards,
Richard Schoen
Director of Document Management
e. richard.schoen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
p. 952.486.6802
w. helpsystems.com
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Question on QTEMP and CGI Jobs
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:52:44 -0700
I don't see any way a qtemp object could get clobbered by another job. As
others have indicated the request-response cycle is synchronous. But since
a single CGI job can have an unlimited number of programs active in the
same job, it seems theoretically possible that one of them could clobber a
qtemp object due to CPU time slicing. Perhaps unlikely, but I'd still steer
away from using qtemp in CGI jobs.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
