Re: SQL vs V5R1 and service woes

["R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr." <rbruceh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
To: midrange-l@midrange.com <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Date: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: SQL vs V5R1 and service woes


>This is an extreme case, and one that argues strongly for an encapsulated
>server.  With a message-based server, your applications would have been
>entirely isolated.  Not only that, when you decided to properly normalize
>your database, you could have done it, again without changing the
>applications.

Extreme yes. Uncommon, no.

And again I don't necessarily disagree with an 'encapsulated server'. But in
a non-OO language, OO techniques can add a layer of complexity that SQL does
not. Square peg, round hole. It just depends on the goals and the supporting
infrastructure.

I may be wrong about this in some contexts, but most RPG is not new
development... it's retrofitting and maintenance.


With either, the database changes are independant. With direct, embedded SQL
we change the program that needs the new data. With encapsulation, we change
first, the I/Oer, add the infrastructure for the field and it's many
possible future uses, then change the target program anyway.

In a maintenance situation and encapsulation, you pay once for the database
and twice for the I/O.
In a maintenance situation and SQL, you pay once for the database and once
for the I/O.

So which does one do more often? Maintenance or development? Anybody at
Rochester know the answer to this one?  ;-)

===========================================================
R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr.
 -- IBM Certified Specialist - AS/400 Administrator
 -- IBM Certified Specialist - RPG IV Developer

"America is the land that fought for freedom and then
  began passing laws to get rid of it."

     - Alfred E. Neuman