|
One other point of view, to my mind, is that both DDS and SQL are fine but not very modern. The tool to define and change files should include the entire gamut of file defintions, cascading deletes, triggers, referential integrity, and constraints. The way we have to do all these piecemeal today just makes no sense anymore. Maybe Ops Navigator will get us there? --------------------------------------------------------- Booth Martin http://www.MartinVT.com Booth@MartinVT.com --------------------------------------------------------- -------Original Message------- From: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Date: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:55:47 PM To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Subject: Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS At 1/7/03 09:52 PM, you wrote: > > IBM telling us that they'll do something doesn't make it a good > > decision. So, yes, it *is* IBM's fault. > >Only if you believe it is a fault to comply with standards. Standards that >IBM created and helped build. SQL came from IBM, not someplace else. In the IBM Midrange world DDS is the standard. Having SQL there for compatibility sake for the rest of the world is moving the box in the right direction. This is similar to adding Java to the box and forcing us to abandon our current development language, just because it's the "new world standard." > > That only "proves" how (relatively) easy it would be to add the > > functionality to DDS. And on the outside chance that there's some >function > > that would not be practical syntactically to add to DDS, how > > difficult would it be do add embedded SQL to DDS?? > > >Indeed it does NOT prove any such thing. Difficult or not, there is a cost. >Complying with standards and then retrofitting a single, obscure (to the >rest of the world) fixed format, definition language simply adds to the cost >of producing the database which adds to the cost of the machine. SQL has to >be done. DDS does not. So DDS is finished. > >And we all know how short the pockets are for buying things in the 400 >world. Why ask for a higher priced box? By eliminating DDS (from a practical standpoint) you've now shifted the cost of redevelopment onto the customer anyway, so we pay either way! I think that it would cost us a lot less for IBM to make the enhancements than for us to have to redevelop major systems. JMHO. -mark
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.