|
Paul, It is not ridiculous. If msg based client/server is similar to OO programing where objects are accessed via msgs ( public method calls ) instead of direct access to their data elements, than the concept is very sound. It is better to code a chg to a date in the order hdr rcd as a function call: OrdHdr.SetDate( CurrentDate ) instead of direct access to the data fld: OrdHdr.EntryDate = CurrentDate. This way a chg to the OrdHdr rcdfmt ( store dates in iso form instead of ymd form ) will not break the code using the function call , but will break the direct access code. Using ODBC to directly access a tables columns is the same as code that directly access a fld in a data struct. Sending a "set entry date" msg to the server is more sound than the equivalent ODBC stmt that direct access the column in the table. Steve Richter ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Paul Raulerson" <praulerson@hot.rr.com> Reply-To: midrange-l@midrange.com Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:00:29 -0600 >MM- Well, I have been following this and *I* don't get your point either. >If I understand it correctly, you are saying that 85% of all programs would >not have >needed Y2K remdiation if they had been "server based." > >I find this rather ludicrious, as the greatest majority of programs I know of >that that >did need remeditation were server based - based in fact on very "server >centric" hosts. >Including OS/390, OS/400, UNIX, and others. > >-Paul > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> >To: <midrange-l@midrange.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:57 PM >Subject: RE: ODBC (was RE: Green screen - it's time is over ) > > >> Brad, it seems we don't communicate very well. I'm going to point out one >> specific instance of where we're just not communicating, and then leave it >> at that. The fact that I can't seem to frame my ideas in a way that makes >> sense to you means that we're just going to waste the time and bandwidth of >> this forum. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Brad Jensen >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Joe Pluta" >> >> > > > > over 85% of the application code WOULD NOT >> > > > > HAVE REQUIRED A SINGLE CHANGE. >> > > > >> > > > Sure, and all the date calculations would have worked fine.... >> > > > I don't think so. >> > > >> > > I said 85%. Do you think more than 15% >> > > of programs had date calculations? What would your estimate be? >> > > Actually, far less than 15% had date calculations - more had date >> > > COMPARISONS rather >> > > than date calculations, but even so those were less than 15%. >> > >> > See, I started as a machine language and assembler program, and I >> > know that ever comparison is a calculation, so that hair split >> > went right by me. >> > >> > Adn you find your programs with date calculations by - reviewing >> > ever single program. >> > >> > And date calculations are just one of many changes that would be >> > necessary - any real data structure changes is likely to cause a >> > need for a programming change - the program is onlky there to >> > support the data structure and its use. >> > >> > > How do I >> > > know? My product, Focus/2000, was used to convert hundreds of >> > > systems worldwide. >> > >> > Congratulations. >> >> See, this isn't a discussion or even an argument. I made a statement: over >> 85% of programs would not have needed changes for Y2K if they had been >> server-based. You disagreed with a rather flip "I don't think so." I >> answered your point with a concise statement about how dates are used in >> programs, with corroborating information about my experiences in converting >> systems. >> >> Your point about comparisons and calculations doesn't relate to the 85% >> figure; less than 15% of business programs use date comparisons or >> calculations, regardless of your machine language background. Your comment >> about reviewing every program doesn't relate to the 85% figure; after >> review, less than 15% of the programs would have needed changes. Your >> comment about data structures might have been relevant, if you had any >> numbers to back it up. However, my experience was that less than one out of >> five systems ever put dates in data structures, and even then it was only a >> few isolated instances where programmers got clever. While that point had >> the distinction that it might have actually been marginally relevant, in the >> end it doesn't affect the 85% figure, either. >> >> Then, to add insult to irrelevancy, when I detail my experience, you give me >> another flip comment: "Congratulations". >> >> All I tried to do was point out that, given my experience in both Y2K >> conversion and client/server architecture, I found that a message-based >> client/server architecture was less affected by Y2K than a non-message-based >> one. I used a real example, real figures, and honestly attempted to >> communicate. You went off on three different tangents - your machine >> language experience, having to review every program, and data structures - >> none of which contributed anything to the discussion, and then finally you >> were rather insulting on top of it. >> >> Zero communication in either direction. Zero addition to the conversation, >> zero addition to the knowledge base of this list (from either of us). These >> discussions add nothing for anyone. So, from now on, I suggest we simply >> ignore each other's posts. For whatever reason, we seem not to have enough >> common ground to communicate effectively and that means that we'll just be >> wasting time and bandwidth. >> >> I'm sorry we haven't been able to discuss this productively. >> >> Enjoy the rest of the weekend. I'm off to watch my beloved Bears. >> >> Joe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list >> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list >To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com >To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l >or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com >Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. > >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.