Re: CHGOBJAUD of *CMD never gets logged; who did CHGWTR

[Mike Amos <yl_mra@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dennis,

To avoid things like having our updated QSYS objects replaced during PTF 
application, there are best practices regarding how we handle 
"replacing" an object in QSYS. Some replace an object directly in QSYS 
and keep a copy in a "safe place" against those times when the QSYS 
object will get updated by IBM. Sometimes, there is no alternative to 
this approach.

What is more often done is to put the updated object in a library that 
is placed in the library list ahead of QSYS. The down side to this 
approach is that if the original code was from IBM and a fix is issued 
against the original code, the code in your library will continue to 
contain the original problem. Of course, there are programmatic methods 
to catch this replacement if it happens and generate a message.

One thing you have to be aware of when deleting things from QSYS is that 
a program's (objects) application may not be apparent from the name. For 
example, multiple commands often use a common program which may, or may 
not, correspond in naming. There are other potential pitfalls as well.

Hope this helps,
Mike

Dennis Lovelady wrote:
> > And I haven't seen anything that I can find that IBM did not
> > intend us to use this feature.  But to each his own!
>
> Have you seen anything that says IBM doesn't intend for us to delete objects
> we don't think we use from library QSYS?  Have you seen anything that says
> IBM doesn't intend for us to replace their OS-supplied programs with our own
> versions?  And yet you probably don't do those things... why?
>
> If IBM documented all the things that are bad ideas... or all the things
> they don't expect us to do... well, they'd all be lawyers and documenters
> with no accomplishment.
>
> Dennis Lovelady
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
> --
> "The unfortunate thing about this world is that good habits are so much
> easier to give up than bad ones."
>         -- Somerset Maugham