Re: More SQL precompiler

["John Taylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob wrote:

> Many of the limitations of the precompiler in ILE RPG are also found in
> those other languages:  local variables, arrays in a PREPARE statement,
> etc.  Thus it is not a limitation of just the ILE RPG precompiler.

Then we should all be asking for a refund on the SQL Development Kit LPP. :)
Seriously though, that only reinforces the fact that there is a significant
problem in whatever division is responsible for product planning of this
LPP.


> John, I am not arguing with you.  How do we go about getting that change
> made?

I have no idea, but I suspect that it will take the grumblings of some large
accounts for anything to happen. Little guys like myself don't seem to have
an audible voice within the walls of IBM. And judging from the low level of
interest in this thread, it doesn't look like too many people are concerned
about it.


In theory you could submit a DCR that is summarized by your
> statement
> "If the precompiler is choking on syntax, data types, subprocedures, or
> other elements within the source member that are valid host language
> statements, then the product simply isn't functional."  Pretty it up a
> little and there you go.  Do you have any other suggestions on how to
> express this to IBM?

First and foremost, the precompiler should not impose any restrictions upon
the use of features provided by the host language itself.

The sole purpose of the precompiler is to facilitate the use of free form
SQL statements within a host language. With its current limitations, the SQL
Development Kit both fails to fulfill this purpose, and as a direct result,
impedes the modernization of our iSeries applications.

The base level of functionality for this product should be defined by its
ability to convert free form SQL statements into native API calls without
imposing any limitations or restrictions over and above those that are
imposed by the API's and/or the host language compilers directly. The
product's failure to adhere to this principal should rightfully be
considered a defect.


John Taylor