Ok, this isn't going anywhere.
Perhaps Joel is right and we're a little thin skinned this week. Let's
take that as a lesson that the wrong words can blur the rest of your
message. Doesn't apply to just this topic but a great lesson in life.
Let's try to look at this positively. So what that other RDBMS' are also
limited to a single level schema (aka library). And while DB2 on IBM i
supports partitions (via members) why should we still be satisified with a
single level schema? Let DB2 on IBM i lead the pack with something
different. Of course, we would have to either make that a proprietary
extension to the SQL standards or get the standards changed.
If this change was made, how would you actually take advantage of it? Are
we talking about
Would CHGCURLIB default to /QSYS.LIB? Let me rephrase that, would
CHGCURLIB '/SchemaOne/SubSchemaA' really be doing
Would CHGCURLIB '/SchemaOne' automatically include all subdirectories of
'/SchemaOne' in your 'library list' to search through? If so, how would a
table existing both in '/SchemaOne/test' and '/SchemaOne/prod' be handled?
How, exactly, would this increase productivity or simplify anything?
If IBM were to accept this, wouldn't the odds that our vendor programs
wouldn't take advantage of this for another decade or two?
Man, if Al Barsa were still alive, and the way he frothed at the mouth
when IBM changed the number of spool files for a job and the number of
libraries in a library list and how that affected his utilities; this
change would kill him off for sure.