FEOD vs UNLOCK -- RPG400-L

Subject: FEOD vs UNLOCK
From: Sam_L <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 17:21:59 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: "RPG programming on the IBM i \(AS/400 and iSeries\)" <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

It appears that some of the folk who wrote some of our code over the last 20 year thought that the FEOD opcode would release a record read for update. I've always used the UNLOCK opcode.

I don't see anything in the documentation that support the idea that FEOD gets rid of a read-for-update lock. And it appears to have failed today deep in the bowels of an EDI batch process.

Anyone know where this idea might have come from?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: FEOD vs UNLOCK , DeLong, Eric

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.