RE: Creating dds source from SQL Tables

From: Dave Odom

Are no other databases an "industry standard RDBMS" if they have any
extensions? "

Well, first, "extensions" are usually NOT to the access architecture of
the RDBMS, only to the SQL language.  If a vendor has a different RDBMS
architecture, they don't call it an "extension", they call it what it
is... an RDBMS architecture/function/feature.

Yup.  Native access is a feature that other RDBMS's lack, although some are
thinking about putting it in because it's so damned powerful.  Whereas
non-standard extensions to the language are horribly nasty kludges that
force programmers to choose between portability and performance.

The fact that SQL STILL to this day does not have (even on the drawing
board) the ability to position a cursor by key is, in my mind, a sign that
SQL designers don't know how to write applications.  Thank goodness we have
native access to get around that unforgivable lapse.  And the fact that the
syntax to get the first three records of a result set is different on each
of the major vendors is a clear indication that SQL vendors don't give a
crap about platform independence or vendor neutrality.

But, what "honks" me
off, is the fact that record level access, is verboten in any well
recognized, industry standard RDBMS; it's a non-standard BACK DOOR to
them.

Please feel free to explain what a back door is and how DB2's indexed access
methodology is a back door.

Further, the i5 community continues to show it is not living in
reality if it thinks it can keep these legacy "let's try to please
everyone and be hugely backward compatible" architectures

This is a perfect example of elitist programming, where what you know is the
best and everything else stinks.  Instead, you should look at DB2 as having
the most flexible architecture, one which provides native ISAM access in
addition to standard SQL features.

and, at the
same time, be seen by the rest of the RDBMS industry standard community
(the real DB2s and ORACLE) as an RDBMS to be taken seriously, in the
same league, or a competitor, or a viable purchase consideration.  It is
an accepted STANDARD that all serious RDBMSs can only have their data
accessed via the SQL language.

This is a complete and utter boogie-man.  There is no "standard"; it's just
that SQL databases don't traditionally support ISAM access because they
aren't written to do so.  But long before there was SQL, there were ISAM
databases and they did great things.  And ISAM access will continue to do
great things.

SQL is not the end-all, be-all.  It's just another tool.  One missing some
major features, but a pretty good tool nonetheless.

i5/OS makes SQL better because it provides you with ISAM access to the same
data.

I always find it amusing when the argument is, "your product is worse
because it has more features!"

Joe