Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names? -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names?
From: "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 10:19:06 -0700
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 5/29/24 10:01 AM, Javier Sanchez wrote:

Why would an expansion in system object names cause headaches?

It would break a great deal of software that uses record-level access.

Every single system API that deals with objects in the QSYS.LIB file system assumes that a fully qualified object name in that file system consists of a 10-character library name, a 10-character object name, a 10-character member name, for database files, and a 10-character object type, for APIs that deal with multiple object types.

The same is true for CL commands.

--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names? , Javier Sanchez

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.