Re: native I/O is NOT using SQL -- (was: Time to get serious)

Hi, Brad:

You may have heard that somewhere, but that was incorrect and misleading!

Both "native I/O" (as in COBOL or RPG, etc.) and SQL share many of the same
"common data management" routines in OS/400 (ones that begin with "QDB...")

For example, OPNQRYF and Query/400 and SQL all use the same internal
"query engine" ... QQQQRY.

And, a physical *FILE and an SQL table use the same underlying MI objects.

But this is hardly the same thing as what you are suggesting, that the
system
is somehow converting ALL "native" I/O into SQL ... !!!

I hope that helps?

Regards,

Mark S. Waterbury

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad Stone" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Time to get serious
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:43:23 -0600
>  "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Brad Stone
> > >
> > > Doesn't native I/O (read, chain, etc) use SQL down in
> > the
> > > bowels of the system anyhow?
> >
> > Not for everything.  Certainly not for single record
> > CHAINs.
>
> I swear I heard it somewhere a while back RPG I/O gets
> converted to SQL somewhere down the line...  I could be
> wrong, but I would be interested in hearing from Barbara on
> this...  if anything for curiosity.
>
> > > To me, it sounds like you are trying to market for your
> > > gain here.  :)  Don't take that the wrong way.  I agree
> > > with it, but it's sort of weighted to one of your
> > > solutions, isn't it?
> >
> > This is baseless and a tad offensive.  You can use
> > embedded SQL and
> > PSC/400 will work fine.
> >
>
> Not talking about PCS.  Not baseless, since it is a major
> part of your sessions and teaching these days.  And it
> certainly wasn't meant to be offensive.  It's just that if
> IBM were to use your marketing idea, it would be easy to
> see you saying "see, IBM says exactly what I do!"  I'm sure
> it's easy to see that.
>
> >
> > > What language was designed to format HTML?  Can't be
> > the
> > > big "J".  Unless you're taking their old marketing and
> > > turning it around on them.  I'd never thought of Java
> > as a
> > > language designed to format HTML.  But many have tried
> > to
> > > use that as a reason to move to it.  :)
> >
> > Java was designed to run in cable converter boxes, if you
> > want to get
> > specific about it.  Then it was redefined as a Web
> > serving language.  It
> > took several releases before you could even run it
> > outside of a browser.
>
> To me, it was marketed as a web language moreso to sell
> products like websphere and get people away from "free" RPG
> or other web solutions.  I always thought of it as a decent
> platform, where portability (when done right) was it's
> strongpoint.  Mediocre with other aspects that are more
> important to me.
>
> I'm not arguing with you Joe.  I've been preaching "your"
> argument that RPG is the best for years now.  So have
> others.
>
> Join us, don't fight us!  :)
>
> Brad
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>