× 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.



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Richter
> >
> > Does a logical file on the server, with explicitly declared
flds, used as
> > the target file name of the client's odbc calls,  solve the
column name
> > dependency concerns?
> >
> > Dont know much about ODBC, but if the odbc connection info (
actual target
> > system, library and file name ) can be stored external to the
client pgm,
> > would that satisfy the "client code is dependent on the target
> > file name and
> > location" objection?
>
> Perhaps, and perhaps.  I am not saying that all ODBC is bad; I'm
saying that
> it's more susceptible to changes in the database layout than a
server-based
> environment.  That doesn't mean you can't avoid some of the
problems with
> stringent coding guidelines and clever techniques.
>
> The fact is that you can write perfectly good code using just
about any
> language, provided you have some strict guidelines in place.
Believe it or
> not, you can write flexible, maintainable code in assembly
language.

And as long as your health holds out, you can maintain it.

I'm in a business group with a guy who is looking for a mainframe
assembler programmer, preferably under 60.

>  While
> you've pointed out a couple of ways to insulate the ODBC
programmer from
> changing database characteristics, what percentage of ODBC
access is written
> that way, do you think?  My guess is that the overwhelming
majority is not.
>
> But each guideline adds its own complexity as well.  How do you
store the
> "external connection definitions"?  How do you access them?  How
do you make
> sure that all your clients are getting the same definitions?
Are they
> stored on the host?  Which host?  As you start adding layers of
complexity,
> the "ease of use" of ODBC evaporates and make the client/server
approach
> even that much more appealing.

ODBC is client/server.  Without client/server, there is no use for
ODBC.

> And even with all the additional work required, this "enhanced
ODBC"
> approach only solves some of the problems.  Take a look at my
earlier post,
> where I outline a simple, real-world situation where shipment
information
> was moved from one level of the hierarchy to a new level.  A
server-based
> architecture takes this in stride much better than an ODBC
architecture.

I can't imagine it would, if the presentation layer is displaying
this quantity in the detail line, and it is suddenly not there.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

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.