Second, longnames=on has a couple of advantages: 1) It makes things much easier to work with at the Unix level, both scripting and manually; 2) It is slightly more efficient in that file opens can be done with one Unix open rather than multiple opens to get down the 'chucked' pathname. (Ignoring the VOC read, etc. to simplify the point.)
To me, #1 is the most important. Thus I always turn longnames on and recommend my clients do the same.
--
Regards,
Clif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W. Clifton Oliver, CCP CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES Tel: +1 619 460 5678 Web: www.oliver.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter D. Ivanick wrote:
One of our programmers asked what the consequences of choosing longnames=on in the install are. My understanding from the administration manual is that it will only impact us should we decide to go back to a system that doesn't support longnames, which I can't foresee happening, but that transitioning up shouldn't be problematic even though we already have a couple of truncated/renamed filenames in the current production system. I assume they'll remain truncated unless explicitly renamed.
Any thoughts about issues/gotchas we should be aware of in going from a longnames=no system to a longnames=yes one?
------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
