RE: QUERY TO SQL

I won't speculate when it comes to your age, Buck <g>, but you make a good
point.  I do not recall the (original?) intent of QM.  Your recollection
doesn't ring a bell with me, but you could be right in that regards.  STILL,
<dead horse beating /on> if IBM's gonna offer to convert a *QRYDFN to QM,
why doesn't it do it right?  After all these years, no less?  <dead horse
beating /off>

Maybe I'm too idealistic.

Dan Bale
SAMSA, Inc.
989-790-0507
DBale@SAMSA.com <mailto:DBale@SAMSA.com>
  Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
  (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Buck Calabro
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:29 PM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: RE: QUERY TO SQL


>Don't you find it disconcerting that IBM makes
>you do this?

Maybe it's my age, but I don't expect IBM to do anything for me at all!

>Heck, it appears that, with enough work,
>one could print a query definition and
>create the correct matching SQL just
>from that.  Maybe even create a template
>so that it could be done with any query.

If I had a lot of queries to convert, I'd probably write my own tool to do
it, just as you suggest.

>if IBM truly wants to move us to SQL,
>they shouldn't saddle us with half-finished
>tool called RTVQMQRY.

Your point about moving to SQL is interesting.  My earliest recollection of
QMQRY is that it was intended as an API for advanced tool-builders to use to
write their own interface to query.  I may (just may?) be full of hot air,
but I don't think IBM ever intended RTVQMQRY and STRQMQRY to be daily-use
tools like the would like embedded SQL to be.

Perhaps a design change request to enhance RTVQMQRY would let them know that
there's demand!
  --buck