Re: Timestamps

["John Taylor" <john.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bruce,

In it's raw form, the UUID is difficult to deal with because the system does
not provide the character representation within the various system utilities
such as DSPPFM, DBU etc. Nor does it work well using ODBC and similar
middleware.

If DB2/400 treated it as a data type, we'd be able to:

-  include it in a table and (presumably) have it set automatically when a
record is written, without having to call GENUUID.

-  it would be stored internally in it's compact form, and formatted for
output as a string when necessary.

- the middleware drivers would be smart enough to convert it properly for
use on a PC.

On the Wintel platform, UUID support is stronger. The Win32 API provides the
necessary functions to work with UUID's, and MS SQL Server treats it as a
data type, so it's therefore supported in all of the potential data access
methods.


Regards,

John Taylor
Canada


----- Original Message -----
From: <bvining@vnet.ibm.com>
To: <RPG400-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:03
Subject: Timestamps


> Out of curiousity, why do you believe a new data type is needed?
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Vining
>
> >
> >Just as a side note, I abandoned my plan to use UUID's because they
proved
> >to be too cumbersome to use. I don't believe that they'll be truly useful
on
> >the 400 unless we get a new UUID data type.
> >


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---