Re: how to create logical file with one key over two fields

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, you're _WAY_ better off explicitly defining the fields in the logical.

In fact, every logical should have fields explicitly defined and every
program should be using a logical never the physical.

Why?  Simple, lets say you want to add a couple new fields, and out of
200 programs using the file only two need the new fields.

With explicitly defined fields in the logicals and all access via
logical, you can just add the fields to the physical and create a new
logical with the existing and new fields and change just the two
programs.  You don't have to even recompile anything else!  Even if
you have a CMS that makes recompiles easy, a recompiled program still
needs to be tested.  Unless you happen to be the only RPG shop in the
world with 100% automated regression testing, reducing the number of
programs you need to test is a great idea... :)

Yes, you'll have extra logicals around, _BUT_ those new field logicals
have basically no overhead since they will presumably share the same
key as an existing logical; and the i automatically shares the access
path of the original with the new.  The overhead of logicals comes
from maintenance of the access paths.

HTH,
Charles


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Stone, Joel <Joel.Stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Problems are:
>
> 1)      I am forced to name each field in the DDS.  I would like it to pull in all fields so the file is interchangeable in pgms with the PF.  If someone adds a field to the product file in the future, the   pgms would not get the new fields.

> And to NOT have to name each field that I want included in the LF; ie I would like to take ALL fields from the PF without individually naming each field?