RE: SQL database object names longer than 10 characters and mixed case?

What would make it more readable is that I can use an OPEN/CLOSE cursor within a recursive ILE procedure and let the recursion stack keep track of my position within each recursive cursor. With SETLL/READE, I've got to have an F-spec for the file within each procedure (only doable on 6.1+). I can't help thinking that building the new ODP from each F-spec would be kind of slow, maybe slower than setting a new cursor. If I don't have a new F-spec within each procedure, I've got to build some mechanism for reseting the position in the READE list whenever a recursion returns; that mechanism becomes hard for the maintenance programmer to read and decipher.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:24 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: SQL database object names longer than 10 characters and mixed case?

I don't want to get embroiled in this religious war. I use both RLA
from RPG and SQL in a variety of forms. I use whichever is suited to
the application I happen to be working.

It's definitely *not* a religious war, Dan. I believe in using whichever tool is right for the job. That seems to me to be just the opposite of a religious position. Those who would require SQL (or RLA for that matter, or null fields, or whatever) seem to have the more rigid ideology. There are very few absolutes in programming, and to tell someone that RLA is bad because it's "outdated" is, if not religious, then certainly somewhat fanatical in nature.

But, I'd like to know what you advocates of RLA think RLA can do that
can't be done with an SQL cursor, or that is significantly slower in
SQL than RLA. Joe even offers in his BOMP example that it could be
done with multiple cursors. I think multiple cursors might actually be
faster than a bunch of recursive SETLL/READE's. It would surely be easier to read.

Not sure about the readability. Why is an exec sql declare cursor, open, fetch and close any more readable than an F-spec with a SETLL/READE loop?
But if you want something that's significantly slower, then just do a simple benchmark on doing a select into for a single record as upposed to a CHAIN. The last time I checked SQL was 5 or 6 times slower tha native I/O. That's not an insignificant amount.

Joe
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.