Re: Using PF constraints

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most legacy code has the database logic separate from the files. In other 
words, in the programs that use the data. That's why the push for 
referential integrity functions in the first place. Of course, the effort 
to change from the former to the latter is all grinding grunt work - the 
"tried and true method" - from SETLL *EXISTS & DELETE by key to handling 
error messages is huge.

JMHO

Vern

At 10:37 AM 4/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> How do you have your database logic separate?
>
> Rob Berendt
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
>
> MWalter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 04/29/2003 10:28 AM
> Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
>
>         To:     Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>         cc:
>         Fax to:
>         Subject:        Re: Using PF constraints
>
>
>
> I'd love to be able to use PF constraints and triggers but it seems pretty
> cumbersome to return the constraint violation messages back to the initial
> caller. Especially if you have your database logic separate from the
> presentation logic. If there is a tried and true method of doing this, I'd
> like to know what it is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> Mark D. Walter