On 05 Jun 2013 12:34, Needles,Stephen J wrote:
The goal is to convert existing DDS-defined DB objects to DDL.

I can pretend to infer there are specific reasons for effecting such a conversion for each chosen file, even while knowing how unlikely that is [esp. with an implication of "all"]. Yet, I must ask rhetorically...

Why do so many choose to waste so much time and effort when there are certainly more productive activities; e.g. code enhancements :-( Hopefully asked often enough, some will stop and ask themselves "Why?" to think upon their choice, before possibly effecting nothing more than a change for the sake of change. Amazing in contrast, how many would allow code to remain unchanged for decades because there is nothing inherently wrong with leaving the source and programs unchanged, yet for some reason [even those same] people are motivated to make the change from DDS to SQL with no logic supporting their actions.

And I must remind... Always make the change to SQL for programs *before* changing from DDS to DDL, to best avoid problems; for one, the mindset of ordered data outside of the ORDER BY in the SELECT query should already have faded. Irrespective of implications by some [snake oil salesmen], the transition to DDL from DDS has *nothing* to do with /modernization/ of applications, except when an unsupported data type or feature of the DDL is required for the design which probably has already changed to use the SQL as part of its transition to no longer depend on the tight coupling of program to the file layout in the apparently /legacy/ RLA ways.

Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact