RE: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ -- MIDRANGE-L

Vern,

Oh yeah, lots of fun with this one.

Not only is the API itself oh-so-easy to use, but you've got all those variable 
length structures to play with.

Normally, when I deal with an API for the first time, I write an include file 
that has not only the required prototype but DS templates to make the next 
person's life easier.  With this bad boy, trying to figure out how to code the 
templates to make them easily reusable is tricky.

Probably should be posting this to the RPG list but....

I'm looking at defining non-based DS in order to use the INZ keyword.  May make 
use of some constants that need to be defined before copying/including the 
file.  It'd be nice if RPG supported INZ on a based DS.  Granted, it doesn't 
seem to make much sense for a based DS.  But, it'd be nice to use 
LIKEDS(myBasedDS) inz(*LIKEDS).  Or being able to RESET on an allocated based 
DS and having the values of certain subfields initialized for you.

Actually, I think I will bring this up on the RPG list, maybe we can get it 
added to the wish list.

Charles Wilt
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vernon Hamberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:54 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: RE: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
> 
> 
> Charles
> 
> Isn't that API fun?
> 
> Doing 2 saves is not too big a deal - it is more like 
> multiple saves to 
> tape - or even SAVLIB with multiple libraries specified - the 
> result is 
> separate tape files. Of course, with SAVLIB, the library 
> description and 
> its contents are saved together in one file, as you said.
> 
> I might be more inclined to retrieve the library attributes 
> to a user space 
> and save that - this way you could create one with the same 
> attributes, 
> including authority, etc.
> 
> Maybe?
> Vern
> 
> At 03:52 PM 2/22/2005, you wrote:
> >Rob,
> >
> >I'd like to upgrade to v5r3.  But...
> >
> >1) I'm not sure if Aldon works yet, they were waiting on a 
> PTF from IBM 
> >last I heard
> >2) I won't have a window to upgrade till July anyway.
> >
> >I'm hoping 1 will be fixed by July so I can upgrade then. ;-)
> >
> >In the meantime, if I want to used the DVD-RAM in my 
> preferred method, I 
> >need to write this program.
> >
> >Now back to my question....
> >
> >I think you are correct in that the SAVLIB command saves the 
> contents of a 
> >library and the description.  So really, I'd need to do both 
> the SAVOBJ 
> >commands.
> >
> >However, that would seem to require to separate runs of the 
> API and two 
> >separate SAVFs.
> >
> >I think I can live without the library description, as this is for 
> >archival not recovery purposes.
> >
> >Charles Wilt
> >iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
> >Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
> >ph: 513-573-4343
> >fax: 513-398-1121
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:31 PM
> > > To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> > > Subject: Re: SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I think you'd probably be better off doing the SAVOBJ
> > > of the library
> > > first.  That way if you have to restore you can get the
> > > definition of the
> > > library before you have to restore the objects within it.
> > >
> > > I had a bunch of other questions regarding your 300
> > > limitation but, as
> > > you've stated, your real desire is the compression.
> > >
> > > Please don't shoot me, but why not upgrade to V5R3 and be
> > > done with it?
> > > It's been out for quite awhile and probably doesn't have any
> > > more bugs
> > > left in it than V5R2 still does.  Granted, there are some design
> > > considerations with CPYTOIMPF and that genre.  But you'll
> > > have to face
> > > that demon sooner or later anyway.
> > >
> > > Rob Berendt
> > > --
> > > Group Dekko Services, LLC
> > > Dept 01.073
> > > PO Box 2000
> > > Dock 108
> > > 6928N 400E
> > > Kendallville, IN 46755
> > > http://www.dekko.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Wilt, Charles" <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 02/22/2005 03:44 PM
> > > Please respond to
> > > Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > > "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion \(E-mail\)"
> > > <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > cc
> > >
> > > Subject
> > > SAVLIB vs SAVOBJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How does
> > >
> > > SAVOBJ OBJ(*ALL) LIB(MYLIB)
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > SAVOBJ OBJ(MYLIB) LIB(QSYS)
> > >
> > > compare to
> > >
> > > SAVLIB LIB(MYLIB)??
> > >
> > >
> > > Reason I'm asking is that I'm attempting to use the Save
> > > Object List API
> > > (QSRSAVO) in a custom SAVLIB command.
> > > The QSRSAVO command is equivalent to the SAVOBJ command, but
> > > without the
> > > 300 library name limit.
> > >
> > > Why am I doing this?  Simple, so I can save to a save file
> > > with medium
> > > compression at v5r2.
> > >
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > >
> > > Charles Wilt
> > > iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
> > > Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
> > > ph: 513-573-4343
> > > fax: 513-398-1121
> 
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion 
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
>