Re: RLA & SQL was (Re: SQL database object names longer than 10charactersand mixedcase?)

... shudder

Almost everything here is incorrect. You do not loose positioned updates
when using RLA, everything is positioned. You loose set based operations.

using SQL for data retrieving and writing with RLA you would have to reposition and so loose direct positioned update (update... where current of...)

No, it has nothing to do with RLA, it has everything to do with the high
cost of disk space when most RLA applications were first written, and
momentum. Back in the early days, it was far too expensive to journal
everything, so commitment control was not common. Even in applications
that used SQL back then. Had nothing to do with capability.

about 20 years ago, I was working for a bank in germany and we journaled everything - and we did not have any problems! And reading posts in this mailing list, you will find very often: use commit(*NONE)...

And transaction handling is no
different between SQL and RLA.

Never heard of set transaction or isolation clause?

If you are using level checks properly, then this is a non-issue.

Level check and SQL created tables are a nightmare, its only a kind of signature over the SQL statement and moving data from one DS to another DS, or overlay could corrupt data and rla tries to bring this to database without field level checking.

D*B

Mark.
--
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.