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]