"Thank you, Dave, for the reminder. I'm back from my locker with "An
Introduction ..." in my hot little hand. I'm still working on the
Yes, it can take some work. I can remember, in the 1980's, the died-in-the-wool flat-file users, IMS users, etc., both in IBM and out, kicking and screaming and had exactly the same arguments and resistance to moving to DB2 and also good relational design for database AND applications. But, most made the transition and you'll probably find some of those folks in IDUG or a local DB2 Users Group.
"Both DAMA and IDUG have affiliates local to me, but I have yet to find a
compelling need to join either. Please feel free to contact me off-list, or on-list if you think there is enough interest."
As to compelling need... if you have a solid foundation in good relational design there may not be need but I can say those folks have a world of experience upon which to draw. Or I can help as well.
As to if I think there is enough interest... I'm not sure what you mean.
Hell, you could even ask me, but I doubt you'd want to. Will I know all the answers; NO. Can I help find the answer; YES. Will it be something you'll like or can work on the IBM i; one can only hope.
"What part of Date's guidance can you not follow on the i? I admit, of
course, that the i encourages SQL, and SQL is "very far from being the
perfect relational language". And the i gives you a host of
non-relational tools, which you may choose to use--for reasons good or
otherwise. Still ... ?"
The problem is not if you CAN follow Date's guidance on the i, the question is will you or will you try to stay in the native flat-file or multi-member file world of non-SQL commands for data description or truly embrace, as fast as possible, the relational world of tables and views and indexes, etc. Because Rochester chose to try to keep a foot in the old and the new and implement DB2 on the i using its old native file structures, and allow "back doors" like READ, CHAIN, etc., I know the temptation to stay in the world in which one is comfortable is temptation indeed. I somewhat understand their business decision but would have like to have seen them give i customers a "new road" architecture choice where a true DB2 instance can be created under the i5/OS that is like all the other DB2s on the other IBM platforms. The i implementation is sooooo out of sync with the other DB2s and it shows not only in version numbers but features and vendor products.
At those shops that are/were mainframe or those that embraced DB2 under AIX or Windoz or ORACLE, there was no choice. Management said we're moving to DB2 or ORACLE and I want you all to do it correctly and their needs to be a very compelling reason why not And, if you go to IDUG or DAMA I think you'll find some there survived the transition and have build world-class applications using good relational architecture.