Re: DB2/400 Rerference file

> I agreed with this up until my first exposures to this on a fairly large site 
>with many applications, assorted third-party packages, and sites around two 
>continents.  Their two field reference files had become a mish-mash of stuff, 
>usually every new application had a new section with all of it's fields 
>including date fields even though the fields were typical of other fields 
>already defined.  At first I felt the site was unusual, with unusual 
>solutions.  But since then, on other sites, it appears to me that the idea of 
>reference file is good in theory, but just not scalable to large 
>installations.  Of course I have seen very few installations, so perhaps other 
>sites have other solutions; perhaps the scaling issue is normally resolved in 
>ways not clear to me yet.

we started out using them too, until it became unmanagable.  so we quit using 
them, except for the limited ones we started with.

i suppose it's ok if your applications are small, but if you have thousands of 
fields, over several hundred files,  it is a lot to keep up with.  at least for 
my simple brain...

nj

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---