×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
All,
FWIW, I *like* the VARYING(2) and VARYING(4) (with VARYING being an implicit
VARYING(2) for backwards-compatibility), paradigm that Barbara says IBM will
probably use. It makes sense to me. In either case, since IBM's not going to
break backwards-compatibility it's not a big issue, is it???
Also, I think it's doubtful that *most* RPG developers will use VARYING(4)
anyway - precious few use VARYING as is (which may be an issue, but it's a
separate issue...). I know that all the 'big guns' here probably use huge
varying fields regularly and talk about the need to have 4-byte length
varying fields so they can hold XML data in them etc., but let's not forget
that *most* RPG developers aren't doing that - they're writing LOB
applications which *maybe* link to IFS files to hold these very large data
strings.
Let's all calm down, shall we :-)
Rory
p.s. I wrote code ages ago to simulate VARYING(4) fields. It's not as easy
as a built-in VARYING(4) option, but it works fine. So I'm not that bothered
if they introduce them...
Rory Hewitt
http://www.linkedin.com/in/roryhewitt
midrange.com
