Re: Anyone try going public exclude on QDLS?

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reaching QCLS with a client may require being registered in the system 
registry, as I recall. But this is not so on the system itself, where 
any IFS command can be used.

Some of the old native support for email requires that attachments are 
in QDLS - yeah, SNDDST.

On 6/1/2012 7:50 AM, Richard Schoen wrote:
> What users would directly know about QDLS unless they are using the old DOS based PC support ? :-)
>
> Does PSF require QDLS ?
>
> I don' remember that being a requirement.
>
> Seriously though,
>
> Why not just  un-share QDLS so users cannot see it as a share ?  That should be simple enough.
>
> I haven't used QDLS since the early 90's and Windows 3.1/98 days.
>
> Unless of course you have iSeries jobs writing there as well :-)
>
> Regards,
> Richard Schoen
> RJS Software Systems Inc.
> Where Information Meets Innovation
> Document Management, Workflow, Report Delivery, Forms and Business Intelligence
> Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Web Site: http://www.rjssoftware.com
> Tel: (952) 736-5800
> Fax: (952) 736-5801
> Toll Free: (888) RJSSOFT
> ------------------------------
>
> message: 5
> date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:03:05 -0400
> from: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> subject: Anyone try going public exclude on QDLS?
>
> I am finding new subdirectories under QDLS.  In order to 'discourage' it's
> use I am thinking of going public exclude on it.
> Why:
> - it's slow
> - it's 8.3 naming convention.  Try to open it with explorer and click file
> new.  Nice ... error.  Even a copy will try to call it "Copy of SOME8.3"
> again generating a nice ... error.
> - other things IBM deprecates about it.
>
> I do have some PSF (print services facilty) exceptions I may have to make.
>
> Rob Berendt