• Subject: Re: Externalize DB/IO (was What Counts as Technically Slick?)
  • From: Douglas Handy <dhandy1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:02:34 -0400


>Good point.  If you simply pass an array of indicators between client and
>server, there must be an "understood" mapping of array element and
>corresponding field.  

Which to me destroys (in part) the purpose for making it external in the first

>I don't think I get the full meaning of John Taylor's suggestion.  The
>AttributeValue property implies that this structure might be used by field
>"getter" and "setter" methods, and other I/O methods popularized by OO
>languages, as well as for error management.  If so, whouldn't that negate
>the simplicity of OS/400 record level I/O?

As Bill Clinton would say, it depends on what the definition of "simplicity" is.
If you need to support multiple UI methods (or want to be able to), then
externalizing the DB I/O and business rules yields the most "simplicity".

With the proper get/set method wrappers, coding at the UI stage really should be
fairly simple.  But it is a paradigm shift for RPG-only programmers.

| 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 thread ...


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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].