RE: QUERY TO SQL -- MIDRANGE-L

When RTVQMQRY first came out, there were no join keywords on the 400. They
were brought in gradually, so that now we finally have a right outer join even.

And interactive SQL is an antique interface that isn't getting much
attention. However, it's basically the same as the prompt in STRQM, and
probably the prompt in SQLRPG when you're in SEU (is that still there? or
ever?).

So these interfaces to query-like activity have not all stayed in sync.

Even before JOINs were explict in SQL on AS/400, it was well-known how to
express this with 'where exists', 'where not exists', and 'union select'.
And when nulls were added to SQL, it should not have been difficult to add
the 'or field is null' to the WHERE clause. But we all know how hard it is
to update our software, right?

I will submit a DCR, when I can put my thoughts together. Rob, can you
publish how to do this? When you don't have a Consultline or SupportLine
contract? Is there a link on InfoCenter that points to the process?

At 01:23 PM 3/19/02 -0500, you wrote:
>I won't speculate when it comes to your age, Buck <g>, but you make a good
>point.  I do not recall the (original?) intent of QM.  Your recollection
>doesn't ring a bell with me, but you could be right in that regards.  STILL,
><dead horse beating /on> if IBM's gonna offer to convert a *QRYDFN to QM,
>why doesn't it do it right?  After all these years, no less?  <dead horse
>beating /off>
>
>Maybe I'm too idealistic.
>
>Dan Bale
>SAMSA, Inc.
>989-790-0507
>DBale@SAMSA.com <mailto:DBale@SAMSA.com>
>   Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
>   (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
>[mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Buck Calabro
>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:29 PM
>To: midrange-l@midrange.com
>Subject: RE: QUERY TO SQL
>
>
> >Don't you find it disconcerting that IBM makes
> >you do this?
>
>Maybe it's my age, but I don't expect IBM to do anything for me at all!
>
> >Heck, it appears that, with enough work,
> >one could print a query definition and
> >create the correct matching SQL just
> >from that.  Maybe even create a template
> >so that it could be done with any query.
>
>If I had a lot of queries to convert, I'd probably write my own tool to do
>it, just as you suggest.
>
> >if IBM truly wants to move us to SQL,
> >they shouldn't saddle us with half-finished
> >tool called RTVQMQRY.
>
>Your point about moving to SQL is interesting.  My earliest recollection of
>QMQRY is that it was intended as an API for advanced tool-builders to use to
>write their own interface to query.  I may (just may?) be full of hot air,
>but I don't think IBM ever intended RTVQMQRY and STRQMQRY to be daily-use
>tools like the would like embedded SQL to be.
>
>Perhaps a design change request to enhance RTVQMQRY would let them know that
>there's demand!
>   --buck
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.