Re: DB2/400 Rerference file

[boothm@xxxxxxx]

I agreed with this up until my first exposures to this on a fairly large site 
with many applications, assorted third-party packages, and sites around two 
continents.  Their two field reference files had become a mish-mash of stuff, 
usually every new application had a new section with all of it's fields 
including date fields even though the fields were typical of other fields 
already defined.  At first I felt the site was unusual, with unusual solutions. 
 But since then, on other sites, it appears to me that the idea of reference 
file is good in theory, but just not scalable to large installations.  Of 
course I have seen very few installations, so perhaps other sites have other 
solutions; perhaps the scaling issue is normally resolved in ways not clear to 
me yet.


In <199809280352.XAA000.69@unicorn.flybynight.com.au>, on 09/27/98 
   at 11:49 PM, "Simon Coulter" <shc@flybynight.com.au> said:

>Hello Booth,

>RPG functions do not obviate the need for a field reference file but they
>do augment one.  It is simply  better to have all the field definitions
>in one place.  All files (PF, LF, DSPF, PRTF, etc) should reference  the
>FRF and never directly reference the database.

>Regards,
>Simon Coulter.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
boothm@ibm.net
Booth Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------

+---
| 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
+---