IBM Power Ideas Portal
This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Power Systems products, including IBM i. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
Shape the future of IBM!
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Search existing ideas
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post your ideas
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
We have evaluated this request and determined that it cannot be implemented at this time.
We have reviewed this requirement and we feel it would be a beneficial enhancement to the product. We hope to be able to add it to our development plans in the future.
Due to processing by IBM, this request was reassigned to have the following updated attributes:
Brand - Servers and Systems Software
Product family - Programming Languages
Product - Developer for Power Systems
For recording keeping, the previous attributes were:
Brand - Rational
Product family - Design & development
Product - Developer for Power Systems
This RFE will be under consideration for a future release. Status has been updated to Uncommitted Candidate.
This RFE is consistent with our strategy and product roadmap and IBM is continuing to evaluate.
Hi,
The suggested solution is not what we are looking for.
We are looking for a simple way to view the content of a LF file from the RDp "Remote System" Perspective in the same way it can be done for a PF file.
How it should work:
1. In RDp go to "Remote System" perspective.
2. Navigate to the LF file in the Objects "subsystem"
3. Right-click the PF file and select "Show In Table"
4. Select the relevant data to view: Members/Fields/Data
Regarding the complexity of the multiple record format additional field data types, it should be fully supported.
Regards,
Gabriel.
An alternative is to use the Database Development Perspective with an i5/OS database connection:
1) Open the Database Development Perspective:
- Window -> Open Perspective -> Other -> Database Development
2) Create a data connection to the IBM i host database:
- In the Data Source Explorer View, right click on Database Connections to open its context menu
- select New
- New Connection dialog opens.
- Select 'DB2 for i5/OS' and specify the host name and userid and password
3) Under the connection, expand Schemas (to get a list of libraries on the system)
4) Select the library of interest, expand it, then expand 'Tables' for Physical Files, or 'Views' for Logical Files
5) Right click on the file name and select Data -> Return All Rows to see the file contents.
Please let us know if this is an acceptable alternative.
To clarify, this RFE requests these context-menu actions be supported for a Logical (Database) File object shown in Remote System Explorer tree view, similar to the current support for a Physical (Database) File:
- Show the Field Descriptions for the file in a table view
- Show the record (data) contents for the file in a table view.
Is this correct?
Logical files can have multiple record formats and additional field data types, which adds a level of complexity to such support. Is it crucial these also be fully supported, or could there be restrictions regarding these?