|
This essentially does the same thing as LVLCHK(*NO) -- it's just an
alternate way of throwing away all of your safeguards.
But, this technique also throws away the ability to use proper keylists,
leaving you with the keylist possibilities we had in the age of
program-described files.
Yuck.
Sorry -- but what is the fascination with doing things wrong? Why not
either use level checks as they should be used, or use SQL to obviate
them? What good does it do to find alternate ways of disabling the
safety net?
On 11/7/2012 12:15 PM, Nathan Andelin wrote:
There was a tip on Linkedin last night for people who are struggling with file level checks. It seemed to be worth considering, so I wrote a small program to test the idea. This is a program that performs setll, read, write, update, and delete operations against a table:
http://www.radile.com/rdweb/temp/rla110.txt
With this structure, no file level checks are reported at runtime even though the file is defined with LVLCHK(*YES), new fields have been added, using alter table, the program was NOT recompiled, and it seems to run flawlessly.
Thoughts?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
