|
> I said message-based client/server, Well, somtimes you did, and sometimes you didn't. > not "server based". And for that > architecture, my statement is absolutely true. No it isn't and you seem to be ignoring the fact that it isn't. > Let's look at the situation: > in a message-based client/server architecture, the client program (such as > an inquiry or a print report) requests data from a server. The client fills > in some fields in a data structure, sends it to a server, then receives data > one message at a time back from the server. In the simplest case, each > message corresponds to a record in the file being queried. > > Prior to Y2K, the dates in those messages would have been six-digit dates. > And that would have matched the way they were stored in the file. Now for > Y2K, we expand the dates in the file, but we DO NOT EXPAND the dates in the > message. When the server returns the message to the client, it simply moves > in only the YYMMDD portion of the date. > > So let's take a print program as an example. Most print programs did no > date calculations; Bingo. 'most' not 'all'. The point is that cleint programs, even in a client server environment, even in a message-based server environment, may have dependencies on data structure even if they don't use ODBC. And the only way to know is to examine them closely one by one. The only way you will know for sure is if you find the dependency, or in the case where you do not find it, if the program breaks AND you catch it. Meanwhile the extra layer of logic adds to the complexity of debugging. It does not reduce it. > they simply read data in a specific order and printed it > out. If they had used a server program to retrieve the data, the server > would have returned the data in the correct order. Even though the data on > the record was eigth digits, the dates in the messages returned to the > client would have had six digits. The programs would have done their > YYMMDD->MMDDYY comversion, and printed them with the appropriate separators, > and the reports would have looked perfectly normal. > > Without a single line of code in the report program changing. > > Does this make sense? It makes sense as a hypothetical case of something that agrees with your assertion, but only as a trivial example that doesn't really test your hypothesis.
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.