Hi,
 
Re:
> b) "add accessor info to FLABELINFO and finfo() first - do a command later".
>    AIFPROCGET item 2065 returns ProcessIDs for all accessors to a file, so
>    there exists a programmatic interface.  I am working on enhancing the :LISTF
>    and :LISTFILE commands first.
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> Is this OK?  Do the majority of you (real SMs, not just s/w developers)
> prefer accessor info via :LISTF, or via a programmatic interface (but not
> both)?
 
If the majority wants a command instead of a programmatic thing, then
that simply means one thing:
 
   they want a command.
 
It DOESN'T mean:
 
   the majority is right;
 
With programmatic access, a trivial program can be written by almost
anyone...and (almost certainly)...several will pop up in the CSL.
 
With only a command form, *safe* *accurate* *efficient* programs cannot be
written (for one, they'd be dependant on the format of the output, which HP
has always warned people against depening on).
 
> -----------------------------------------
> Choice 1 (column format sort of like ,3):
> -----------------------------------------
>
> ********************
> FILE: LOGFILE1.LOGGING1.SYSTEM12  (5 ACCESSORS,SHARED,3 R,2 W)
>
> USER: JOBNAME8,USER5678.ACCT5678,GROUP678
> JSID: #S12345        PROG:   MYPROG78.MYGRP678.MYACCT78
> PIN:  12345          ACCESS: Read,share
> LDEV: 12345          LOCKS-- FLOCK: Yes-share
> REC#: 1234567890             OPEN:  Yes-share
>                              GUFD:  No
> User: JOBNAME8,USER5678.ACCT5678,GROUP678
> JSid: #S12345        Prog:   RSPOOL.RSPOOL.SYS
> Pin:  104            Access: Write,share
 
For choice 1, put a delimiter of some kind between the groups...perhaps a blank line...so a parser can distinguish between individual accessors.
 
> Ldev: 12345          Locks-- FLOCK: No
 
 
 
(more later)
 
--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]