× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: DDS Support
  • From: "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:15:08 -0400

James,

At 6/27/00 11:31 PM -0700, you wrote:
>   Out of curiosity, would you have the same opinion if we were talking
> about replacing CL with REXX?

That would be a bit more of a challenge. <g>  But since REXX is
available on just about every platform and OS, it wouldn't break my
heart to see CL wither on the vine.  Don't get me wrong, I like CL, I'm
just not married to it.

 My point is that just because it exists on "all" platforms doesn't mean that we should be forced to switch to it.  Where is the ROI?

But back to the main topic, I would propose energy should be spent
having SQL enhanced to allow for a REFFLD type of definition and any
other feature that PF/LF DDS possesses that is not within SQL.  In the
mean time, I'll write my own data dictionary and format definition
processor which does have REFFLD capability and use it to generate the SQL.

 Now here's the rub.  Putting those features in SQL would make SQL non-compatible w/ the rest of the world.  So all the cross platform compatibility arguments fall my the wayside.  So now we're back where we started from - IBM may as well enhance DDS and get it over with.

> >BTW, if you -do- have to change the underlying DB (and at some time you
> >undoubtedly will), with the appropriate tool you can create new DDS and
> >new SQL and a conversion program when CHGPF or CPYF *MAP *DROP won't do
> >the job for you.
>
>   When is this the case?


 When you take some file that had the date in separate mo/dy/yr fields
and want to create a single field that is a date data type comes to mind.

 Then you're changing the layout or format of the data, so that's not a fair comparison.  But you actually can do it by mapping the fields in a *LF and then doing the CPYF *MAP *DROP

 -mark

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.