Re: RLU (vs) handcoded prtf DDS

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>]

Joe,

I am in agreement with you to a point.  The purpose of external definition 
AFAIK is to
ease the burden of maintenance where a data base file may be used in a 
multitude of
programs. Now a report format is commonly only used in a single program. Why 
bother to
externally describe it (other than DDS functions beyond RPG)?

Simple answer ... sometimes (and only sometimes) ... one can get away with a 
report format
change without a level check.
Like after everyone has looked at the format prototype and signs off on it, 
then the
"real" things shows up on their desk, then (actually it's usually) you get 
asked: "Can we
swap these two columns around?" or "The forms supplier made a mistake, can you 
move the
column over?" And you get to say: "You bet, no problem. Consider it done."  You 
raise your
arms in triumph as the crowd cheers ;-)

Carpe de momento.

Joe Teff wrote:

<<snip>>

>  I am pretty neutral on the O-spec vs DDS battle. I can
> use either and haven't found any reason other than barcoding to tip the scale.
> A tool should support both because of the wide spread use of both. This is not
> true of internally defined database and workstation files because I do not see
> either of these very often.
>



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---