Re: Pros & Cons

[Paul Tuohy <tuohyp@xxxxxxx>]

Darlene,

As others have identified, there is a potential problem with record locking, 
when
using the same field names. Although this can usually be overcome by defining 
the
file as an externally defined multiple occurence data structure ( 2 occurrences
). the logic would then be:

1 Occur
Chain(N)
Exfmt
2 Occur
Chain(N)
1 Occur
Update

Things to watch for are which fileds you are using as key fields ( easier if not
be in the DS ) and date fields ( usually need reformatting between the program
and display ).

Personally, I prefer to use the same field names in both DSPF and program. If 
you
add new fields to the PF ( and DSPF ) and no validation is required, program 
just
needs to be recompiled.

HTH

Paul Tuohy


Tim-Bar wrote:

> Here's one to toss around -
>
> When creating a display file for a file maintenance program, is it
> better to reference the physical file fields or create fields with
> different names? If you use different screen field names you have to
> move the file fields into those fields to display on the screen and then
> move the screen fields back into the file fields before updating the
> record format. This seems like a lot of extra work. Is there any reason
> to do it this way?
>
> TIA
>
> Darlene Brengle
> Norsoft, Inc.
> +---
> | 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
> +---



+---
| 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
+---