This is a multipart message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] >DDS provides a place to store your source So does: RUNSQLSTM, STRQMQRY, homegrowns based on STRQMQRY and a host of other tools to store your SQL source >DDS provides a field reference file But if everyone used the same field names and PREFIX or QUALIFIED then the system file QADBIFLD would be terrific. Also, a SQL UDT would be a better substitute for a field reference file. But if you >never use sql< then I can understand the grounding for your beliefs. Rob Berendt -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "Al Barsa/Barsa Consulting" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent by: email@example.com 04/23/2002 04:53 PM Please respond to midrange-l To: "M. Lazarus" <firstname.lastname@example.org> cc: midrange-L@midrange.com Fax to: Subject: Re: Fwd: Request for CL, DDS, SQL RPG enhancements With COMMON being last week, I've been buried. See my in-line comments below. Al Al Barsa, Jr. Barsa Consulting Group, LLC 400>390 914-251-1234 914-251-9406 fax http://www.barsaconsulting.com http://www.taatool.com >To all Midrangers, > > I have an opportunity, in about 1.5 weeks, to participate in a conference >call with some IBM product managers and software engineering managers in >Rochester. The topic: What is missing from CLP, DDS and embedded SQL in RPG. > > What I am requesting is your favorite enhancements you'd like to see, pet >peeves, how things could work better, etc. If a code snippet would make >your position clearer, by all means include it (especially for the embedded >SQL stuff.) If possible or applicable, please include business or >programming reasons for the request. > > Some items to get things started: > >- Are you upset w/ the direction IBM has taken regarding DDS vs. SQL? Absolutely. You need to be able to define anything in DDS that can otherwise be done only in SQL. Although DDS is proprietary to the 400, it provides a place to store your source, and permits the extremely powerful field reference file capability, missing from SQL. >- Do you need more than one file defined in CLP? You won't get this one, because this would break existing code. To be able to have more than one file defined in a CLP, your RCVF would have to reference which file. I can live calling a subprogram, and if you did it in bound modules, the overhead for the call would be low. >- Do you need to be able to update files within CLP? I would find this useful, I'm unsure if you will get it. >- Are you fighting w/ embedded SQL, due to precompiler restrictions? No, I never use SQL. > > I don't know if it will lead to any major changes, but at least IBM is >listening! > > Please send them to me directly email@example.com, not to the list. > > Thank you! > > -mark Other things that I need in CL: 1). Variables longer than 9999. 2). More than 300 elements in a list. (This is a hardcoded thing, and will require program retranslation when we get it.) 3). Subroutines 4). Real loops _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-Lfirstname.lastname@example.org Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact