How many fields are you talking about? There is s limit to the width of a physical file record. We have done this for years and was actually a best practice with I started with S/38. Called a field reference file. We now have 6 because of the limitation of the record width. All fields defined in the field reference file, all physicals use a "R"eference to the field reference file, all logicals reference the physical, all prtf/dspf files reference the logicals used in the application. It has worked fairly well. We even use reference points in the field reference file when we needed/wanted to have the same data in different field names in each physical. (P_DEPT is Department code in the Person file, DEPT is the Department code in the Department file). Defined DEPT in the field reference file, then had P_DEPT point to the DEPT definition. When you do this sequence of fields in the field reference file is important.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Piotrowski
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: PF Compiled Files with Dictionaries vs. SQL-Created Tables
Hi All,
For years (prior to my arrival), the programs written around here were all based on physical file definitions. However, these definitions were never really consistent - a field of one type may not be the same type and length in another file. We then began moving to creating tables with SQL statements, keeping in mind the importance of creating fields that were the same type and length regardless of the table in which they were used. However, this was cumbersome because we always had to keep a running list of field definitions along with their sizes and types.
We're now looking to move back to physical file definitions with a twist - all definitions will be contained in a single dictionary file that lists all of the fields, their types and their lengths. Even though we will have to do a lot of data table conversion, I am hoping this will allow us to centralize the definitions and not have to worry that a field in one table may not be the same in another.
Has anyone had any experience similar to our current conundrum and if so, did you solve it using a similar method? If not, what worked best for you?
Thanks!
/b;
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brian Piotrowski
Assistant Mgr. - I.T.
Simcoe Parts Service, Inc.
Ph: 705-435-7814 x343
Fx: 705-435-5029
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.simcoeparts.com
Please consider the environment. Don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
The information contained in this communication is confidential and intended only for the use of those to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me by telephone (collect if necessary) and delete or destroy any copies of it. Thank you!
--
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.
midrange.com
