RE: Logical File or OPNQRYF or any other way ? - Legacy

[William Washington III <w.washington3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey!  Now THAT is kewl!  Seriously!  And it makes perfect sense, because the
view has all of the info that particular program needs.  Another program would
use a different view.  I see no need to ever change a particular view, unless,
once again, someone went to extremes with creating them.

I'll put that info to use immediately!  Thanks, Chris.

William


> date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:19:07 -0800 
> from: Chris Bipes <chris.bipes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> subject: RE: Logical File or OPNQRYF or any other way ? - Legacy
> 
> Actually if you create views to use with your RPG program that do not share
> the view of the PF, you can add or move fields in the PF and not effect any
> RPG programs using the other views.  Now if you remove a field used by SQL
> or RPG you will have problems until you update your programs not to use that
> field.  It will also cause problems with your defined views.  Think of a LF
> that has it's own record format, not using the PF record format as a view.
> 
> Now how does that differ from imbedded SQL except in flexibility of creating
> the view on the fly.
> 
> Chris Bipes
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> If I make a change to the database, yes, I will have to modify (typically,
> recompile) my RPG programs.  So what?  That's part of the process.  The fact
> that the database is bound to the program gives RPG its well-deserved
> reputation for random-access performance.  That is the design tradeoff for a
> business machine.  If the data layouts are changing all the time, well, what
> kind of model is the business operation on?
> 
>