| -----Original Message----- | [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom Liotta | >For wish list: I wish DDS level-check calculation had same *PREVIOUS | >binder-source facility that ILE programs had, so fields could be added at | >end (as they ALWAYS should be), WithOut causing a level check in | a pgm that | >doesn't need the new fields. | Isn't this a practical side-effect of DDS LFs anyway? As long as | (1) the LF _explicitly_ lists fields and (2) programs use the LF | to access the data, there should be no problems if new fields are | added to the PF nor if the fields are rearranged in the PF. (It | doesn't matter if fields are added at the end, in the middle or wherever.) That's correct, and was the standard in the first 38 shop I worked in (Liebert in '82). There are other benefits as well, such as making it more convenient to do multi-format LF and join LF. However afaik, most shops doing this would normally have the added overhead of an organized and maintained central FldRef file or "Data Dictionary". | If the new field is needed in a given program, that program | obviously needs to be recompiled anyway. Create a new LF to | include the new field. Ideally, the access path will be shared | with the old LF, so nothing much is really added to the system -- | just a new data definition. Yeah, no extra load on the CPU for the new LF. Although I had a utility to make LF source from PF src, I would say that I haven't used this practice since mid-to-late-80's much. I had a utility that did most of what ChgPF SrcMbr(x) does and which LvlChk'd everything to *NO. Then I'd run a mass-compile through Hawkeye (or equivalent, if any) and run the Cmd to ChgLvlChk back to *YES. (Why for you'd need a make facility, I dunno, unless you don't have real-time tools to regen a system like I've become spoilt by over the years...?...;-) | Programs using old LFs shouldn't need to be recompiled although | the old LFs themselves do (though I'm not clear why they _have_ | to be other than that's the way DB2/400 was written.) I don't think they do need recompiled if they use old LFs with the fields specified explicitly... ? Also, the main reason I switched to ChgPF is that it's my (partial) understanding IBM does some pointer switching to avoid rebuilding the access paths (unless necessary). I believe Turnover and others have similiar capability or better. | | Tom Liotta | | -- | Tom Liotta | The PowerTech Group, Inc. | 19426 68th Avenue South | Kent, WA 98032 | Phone 253-872-7788 x313 | Fax 253-872-7904 | http://www.powertech.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.