Hi James,
I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here:
I think you're exactly right. My original "RRN is not an SQL concept"
comment was simply to note that standard SQL, and relational databases in
general, don't grok relative record numbers or even the notion of reliable
sequence without a WHERE clause.
If you're stuck with a system using relative record numbers, you can use
JTOpen's SequentialFile class ( com.ibm.as400.access.SequentialFile ). On
non-AS/400 systems, you'd have to find some similar specific classes.
Joe Sam
Joe Sam Shirah - www.conceptgo.com (904) 302-6870
conceptGO - Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
Java Filter Forum: www.ibm.com/developerworks/java
Just the JDBC FAQs: www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
Going International? www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
Que Java400? www.jguru.com/faq/Java400
-----Original Message-----
From: James H. H. Lampert
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:33 PM
To: Java Programming on and around the IBM i
Subject: Re: Hmm. "String nativeSQL(String sql) . . . converts the . .
.JDBCSQL grammar into . . . the native form of the statement"
On 1/28/13 1:51 PM, Dan Kimmel wrote:
I still argue that there is no reason for RRN or other form of
arrival sequence in relational databases. Do you have any reasons?
I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here:
There is indeed no reason for a properly designed database to require
RRN access.
But neither is there any reason to expect all databases to be properly
designed, with the result that in a general purpose access utility,
there is every reason to assume that the database being accessed is NOT
properly designed.
--
JHHL
midrange.com
