Re: journal receiver maintenance

You bring up some good points about what someone might want from the
return code.
However I disagree that people would just bicker. Sure, half the world
had their own RUNSQL command but that didn't stop IBM from bringing their
own late to the party. Sure, IBM named their parameters different than
everyone else. Sure IBM doesn't let you run a plain SELECT in theirs
while everyone else's does. Even saying this, it still brings some
benefit to the party if IBM creates their own UDF.
For one, there are those who are too restrictive to allow vendors to
create one to add to their system.
Another, there are those who question the legitimacy of someone rolling
their own. I've caught enough of that with past replies on how it was
such a big security risk, or that if you keep it complicated by calling
APIs and whatnot then the incompetent are less likely to try it and really
bollix things up. However if IBM supplies it then it's been blessed by
high deities.
Another, if you put on one version of your own QCMDEXC UDF, and your
vendor puts on another, and this other vendor... then it gets to be right
unpleasant calling the right one. Not impossible (let's not go down that
technical tangent) but that's not the point.

I'm saying, it's going to happen. It's just too productive to believe
otherwise. Let's do it right.



Rob Berendt