Re: Question on QTEMP and CGI Jobs

I find that a lot of RPGers who modify/write CGI programs are completely unaware that the jobs are reused. It is an easy trap to fall into when you use a test setup (say on a non-std port) and nobody else is dong anything much. The result is that you can easily slip into your old 5250 habits and start assuming that stuff in the job will just be there.

This is one of many reasons why I have often said that it is far easier to teach web programming to an RPG II or CICS programmer than it is to somebody who has never done anything except RPG in an S/38 style.

Nothing is dangerous when used "properly" - I guess you are lucky enough to only work with people who do things properly!


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Richard Schoen <Richard.Schoen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would think anyone who understands and uses CGI would be aware of QTEMP being unique across job instances and would avoid the potential pitfalls by not assuming they can re-use a saved QTEMP value across CGI calls because of not being guaranteed to hit the same job instance each time if there is heavy traffic.

The only reason I asked the question is I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any obscure changes that have happened in regards to sharing QTEMP in the past few years.

To me QTEMP has always been an IBMi strength, but you're also advocating against it as a staunch IBMi proponent. Not dangerous if used properly just like any other tool.

In .Net and PHP and other web platforms I tend to use session tables for any related info, so I understand the argument for using data backed sessions but you're de-advocating one the IBMi job strengths.

Just sayin...

I'll report back in on this once we find the root of the issue. Personally I think it's a programming thing since I've looked at the code and there is some value swapping and restoration going on for some reason within a single active call to the program. There is probably a logic flaw in how that was coded. Not be me :-)

Thanks for all the interesting responses to this question.

Regards,

Richard Schoen
Director of Document Management
e. richard.schoen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
p. 952.486.6802
w. helpsystems.com

-----Original Message-----
I would think that the biggest problem with using QTEMP is that it is unique to the job - but the job will be reused.

Not an issue if the code restricts usage to a single request/response pair - but to me it is just a problem waiting to happen when some programmer down the road decides to rely on the thing still being there from a previous request.

Personally in CGI jobs I avoid QTEMP like the plague - once bitten ....


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
--
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.