It could. It hasn't for us. We always add fields to the ends of our
physicals, so you could use Level check-no on the historical files. Not
sure if this value is checked at compile or run time. If you have it under
your control 1 version is the best. if that should impact your performance
for some functions (searches that always require a table scan), 1 file for
"current" data and one file for "old" data. move stuff once per year. We
don't have new people, all old dogs.

Jim


------------------------------

message: 6
date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:14:53 +0000
from: Alan Shore <ashore@xxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Question on updating some OLD programs

Interesting, but doesn't this create something of a logistical headache?
Whenever a change to the file is required, don't you have to make the same
change to multiple (historical) versions of that same file?
How do new people receive this idea?
I'm of the opinion, one master file, not umpteen versions of a master file.


Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Direct Response
E:AShore@xxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill



This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 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].