You didn't say if you were using ILE.
But if you set the debug key word to *ALL, and select the listing view (F15 in debug will allow you to select it), then you will see the copybook code.
Marvin
------------------------------
message: 3
date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:36 -0700
from: "Bob Bledsoe" <bledsoe.bob@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: debug with copybooks
I am trying to debug a program that contains copybooks with subroutines. No
matter what I try I can't step into the routines that are in the copybooks.
I know it can be done, but I just can't find the secret. Could someone
please tell me how it's done?
Thanks,
Bob B
------------------------------
message: 4
date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:53:29 -0400
from: <lgoodbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Eclipse files not saved - for the archives
My BRMS daily (non-restricted) save for *LINK (IFS) objects notes two
files are not saved:
/QIBM/UserData/Eclipse/workspace/.metadata/.plugins/org.eclipse.tomcat/c
atalina.2008-09-28.log
/QIBM/UserData/Eclipse/workspace/.metadata/.applicationlock
I found this techtarget article to find IFS locks:
http://search400.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid3_gci1097045,00.html#
Ran the command: call qp0fptos parm(*lstobjref
'/QIBM/UserData/Eclipse/workspace/.metadata/.applicationlock' *format2)
Yields:
Catalina log: 620856/QIBMHELP/QJVACMDSRV
Dot applicationlock: 620856/QIBMHELP/QJVACMDSRV
Another candidate for exit processing during our daily saves.
Endtcpsvr server(*ibmhelp) took about a minute to release the lock.
The weekly restricted state BRMS backup saves all IFS objects.
Loyd Goodbar
Business Systems
BorgWarner Shared Services
662-473-5713
------------------------------
message: 5
date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:27:46 -0500
from: Gerald <gmagnuson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: call rpgle stored procedure from PHP (php server in
windows)
Thanks Lukas,
as Scott pointed out, we could use the db2_ functions...
except.....
I need to figure out how to "simply" get the db2_ extensions bound to
our php platform.
I've downloaded the PECL object, but am not sure what to do next.
I am looking at php.net, but I'm standing on the ground floor, and this
looks like penthouse type stuff to me.
Lukas Beeler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:06 PM, bryan dietz <bdietz400@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<?
// $conn = i5_connect("localhost", "MYUSERID", "MYPASSWORD");
This functionality does not appear to be mainline PHP, but instead
some custom extension for the distrubtion on the i. The OP was talking
about running PHP on Windows.
See e.G. http://ch.php.net/manual-lookup.php?pattern=i5_connect
------------------------------
message: 6
date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:36:51 -0400
from: "Charles Wilt" <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: AW: DDL Discussion continued
A DDS defined logical file can have features similar to an SQL index and a view.
IBM simply chose to have them show up under view instead of index in
iNav. Given that most DDS LF's I've seen have keys and the same
format as the physical, I would have put them under indexes. I can't
say that I've ever seen an non-keyed DDS LF.
You can DBU/DFU or use RPG and access an SQL defined index just like a
keyed DDS defined logical.
Thus, it's easy to replace most DDS defined logicals with an SQL
index, and there are performance benefits from doing so:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/resources/systems_i_software_db2_pdf_Performance_DDS_SQL.pdf
The SQL defined indexes default to a larger page size simply because
the lager size makes sense now-a-days given the amount of RAM common
in today's boxes. IBM chose to not to change the size of DDS LF,
perhaps the smaller size makes sense for RLA.
However. If you create a SQL index, with keys KEYFLD1, KEYFLD2,
KEYFLD3 and then create a DDS logical with the same keys. The logical
file will share the access path contained in the SQL index! DB2 won't
bother to create a duplicate access path in the DDS logical object.
HTH,
Charles
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Dave Odom <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vern, et al,
Where I get my info there is a difference between a LF that may be an access path and an true index created by the CREATE INDEX command, is from how they look in the system and via Navigator. I"m also not sure a LF is constructed underneath like an index either but you all probably know more about that.
When I take a look at a logical file it seems to have a structure, much like a PF. You can see actual data. When I take a look at an index, I don't see the same thing. The LF also doesn't seem to have the same page size, the index being much bigger. It seems in a LF, you can have SQL to create a view and therefore do things that don't seem to be available with an index. It appears a LF can be accessed via a program to sort and present the data to a program in a different way than how the data exists in a PF. An index is accessed "under the covers" and from what I can see, can't be accessed directly by a program. Just some of the differences I see.
On the system I work on, there a MANY LFs/access paths but they don't show up as indexes via Navigator but an index does.
That, coupled with the traditional use of an index in a relational database vs. a VIEW (LF to you all) makes them different animals. Why are my observations so different between the two but yet you all say they are the same? What am I missing?
Dave
--
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.
------------------------------
message: 7
date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:16:29 -0500
from: Al Mac Wheel <macwheel99@xxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: alternate solution
Where I work this is more political than technical.
Once people have had certain capabilities, pulling them means push back
through management demanding we continue the capabilities certain people
have grown to need in their work, not want to have to learn alternative way
of doing things.
Also when we have new users, I set them up with limited access until I get
assurance of their training, but it is not unusual to be told to give exact
same access to brand new hire, as we have for 10 year veteran, or to have
someone with extreme access, be replaced by novice who signs on using the
high power access.
e.g. person X was just hired, signs on using person Y password.
So if management is not interested in security issues, computer staff hands
rather tied.
I am less interested in risk from internal klutz than risk from persons
able to sign on using external connections to the system. Example, someone
with a laptop has access to our AS/400. That laptop also has wireless. If
the security to that wireless is the least bit fflakey, then anyone outside
the building who has nothing to do with our company, can use the wireless
to do anything that the person with the laptop has security to do..
Now suppose that laptop is in trunk of employee car, and gets stolen.
How soon are we told that user password needs to be changed?
We are now owned by another company, whose leadership commanded that their
consultant have master security access, without telling us all that
consultant is to do. Seems to me the consultant has both experienced and
inexperienced staff.
Again this is much more political issue than technical.
Then there are so many ways to access the 400 such as TELNET, FTP scripts.
We techies may be familiar with one bunch of ways the system can be
accessed, and we do a good job of locking them down, but there are other
ways we not familiar or knowlegeable with, that are probably not locked
down good.
You can buy security evaluation products that will identify all the many
different kinds of problems with your overall system, then use the info to
improve your security, then run the evaluation again to re-prioritize what
to tackle, provided you have the political support.
You can have triggers on files that prohibit certain actions, irrespective
of how the files are accessed.
I have setup menus for system functions, such as message other users, work
with reports, check JOBQ, who is doing what on the system. I sell some of
these menus to people on the basis that you no longer have to remember the
parameters to key.
I have several sets of such menus, where there is security access
limitations, only certain technical people can get to menu FXS for example,
which we use to fix various problems that occur, while everyone has access
to menu MSG for sending messages to co-workers and reading certain message
queues.
There is a menu option to get into PDM where the parameters have been
pre-seeded to only see certain subsets, where the "software" is really
documents ... "How Tos."
When you have an IBM command inside a CL that is executed from a menu
option, you can force some parameters to be unable to be changed by the
user, and make others changeable at executiion time. You pick and choose
which in the CL when you set it up.
In the PC connection world, there are ways to access that are more powerful
than command line, such that removing command line access in user profile,
does not do that much for security. You need to study the security manuals
that come with the 400, and attend some of the security classes.
One of our consultants setup for us, in a highly secure requirement, a PC
that had no Windows OS, no alternative to Windows, the only thing was
AS/400 access to a Menu only access privilege, and no way to get out of the
Menus ... if user took F3 to exit the Menu, it took them to *SIGNOFF. We
tested that pretty good & were unable to break it ... the people using that
PC could only do the stuff on the Menu we provided, nothing more.
Al Macintyre
Sorry there was some thing wrong with my computer with my earlier post.We
are trying to reduce the command line access to users on AS/400 and try to
implement strategy like alternate Menu with all commands . Anyone who had
experience workingon reducing the command line access and implementing
different solution , please share with me your thoughts.Also, would it be
possible at all to execute any command (like calling a program or
executing AS/400 command ) if there is no command line access and Menu
option.Please share your thoughts, Thank you
------------------------------
message: 8
date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:46:08 -0400
from: rob@xxxxxxxxx
subject: Re: AW: DDL Discussion continued
1 - You really don't see "actual data" in an index, view or LF. Now,
there may be enough information in an index that the query optimizer never
has to go to the actual table. For example if you CREATE INDEX and select
COL1 in the index and then do a SELECT COL1, COUNT(*) FROM TABLE1 GROUP BY
COL1 then the optimizer can use that index and never refer to the table
because the occurrences of COL1 are in there.
2 - The LF also doesn't seem to have the same page size, the index being
much bigger.
True. Give SQL's DDL a plus here.
3 - It seems in a LF, you can have SQL to create a view and therefore do
things that don't seem to be available with an index.
Let me rephrase this. In a LF you can combine attributes of a view and an
index. Yes it is true. And in V6R1 DDL was enhanced to do much of this.
However objects created with this are strictly there to replace using DDS
to create them. Target audience is those people still using HLL access
like CHAIN in RPGLE but want to create the objects with DDL and not DDS. I
do not believe the query optimizer will use objects created with the V6R1
options.
4 - It appears a LF can be accessed via a program to sort and present the
data to a program in a different way than how the data exists in a PF.
True. You can use SQL against a LF and alter the ordering sequence. But
you cannot perform SQL against an SQL index. They're there just for use
by the optimizer.
I mean the following in the best of light, really. If you're adamant
about only using SQL to access your files, why should you care? The
people who are gung ho to use the LF's are those who are using HLL's to
access the files and want those sort orders. The select/omits are just
gravy because a sql view would accommodate that (if you were accessing the
file view sql and could leave the index selection up to the optimizer).
5 - An index is accessed "under the covers" and from what I can see, can't
be accessed directly by a program.
A restating of bullet 4.
6 - On the system I work on, there a MANY LFs/access paths but they don't
show up as indexes via Navigator but an index does.
They do show up, they just show up as views.
Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
"Dave Odom" <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
10/01/2008 03:04 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: AW: DDL Discussion continued
Vern, et al,
Where I get my info there is a difference between a LF that may be an
access path and an true index created by the CREATE INDEX command, is from
how they look in the system and via Navigator. I"m also not sure a LF is
constructed underneath like an index either but you all probably know more
about that.
When I take a look at a logical file it seems to have a structure, much
like a PF. You can see actual data. When I take a look at an index, I
don't see the same thing. The LF also doesn't seem to have the same page
size, the index being much bigger. It seems in a LF, you can have SQL to
create a view and therefore do things that don't seem to be available with
an index. It appears a LF can be accessed via a program to sort and
present the data to a program in a different way than how the data exists
in a PF. An index is accessed "under the covers" and from what I can see,
can't be accessed directly by a program. Just some of the differences I
see.
On the system I work on, there a MANY LFs/access paths but they don't show
up as indexes via Navigator but an index does.
That, coupled with the traditional use of an index in a relational
database vs. a VIEW (LF to you all) makes them different animals. Why
are my observations so different between the two but yet you all say they
are the same? What am I missing?
Dave
--
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.
------------------------------
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) digest 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.
End of MIDRANGE-L Digest, Vol 7, Issue 1937
*******************************************
midrange.com
