From: Paul Raulerson
What part of this is still unclear to you? Do you know of some way to
create a cursor WHERE NAME >= "G" and somehow roll backwards to get a
record
with NAME = "F"?
Effectively , yes of course.
What I said and what you did not hear was to NOT create the cursor that
way,
David asked that this conversation be dropped, and so I shall. This post is
not about whether or not SQL supports positioning by key within a cursor.
So why am I posting?
Because I am tired to death of the few people on the list who insist on
avoiding simple questions and instead arguing points that don't address the
issue - and then calling names.
I want to for once and for all make the distinction between a technical
question and an architectural opinion. When I ask if you can position by
key within an SQL cursor with an operation equivalent to SETLL, it's a
really simple question. Using two cursors is not positioning by key, using
a binary search is not positioning by key - they're certainly valid
approaches, but they don't answer the question. When a technical question
is asked, you either answer the question or don't.
A technical question is clear to ask and simple to answer - confusing the
issue with opinion as to how an application "should" be written is egoism of
the worst kind. We're all very competent programmers on this list, and
we're asking technical questions so that we can make our own architectural
decisions, thank you.
Answer the question. Separate fact from opinion.
Now, if someone asks for an opinion, or if you think an opinion is
warranted, then great, feel free to chime in. I'm the last one to try to
quash freedom of expression. But don't position your opinion as the answer
to a technical question - answer the question first, then venture your
opinion.
If I ask you if two plus two equals four, I really don't want your opinion
on whether I should be adding the numbers. That ain't the question, and to
answer a simple technical question with an opinion is in my opinion the
height of arrogance.
And obfuscating the question with phrases like "straw man" or "effectively"
is as bad as Bill Clinton saying, "That depends on what the meaning of the
word 'is', is."
Okay, I've vented now. You can ignore me - many do <grin>. But I'm just
sick of the time wasted by people who can't answer simple questions. I
blame myself; I should know better than to even engage them, but sometimes I
find the question important enough to try to get an answer, even if it's a
fruitless endeavor.
I apologize for the wasted bandwidth. I'll go back to fighting with
WebSphere now.
Joe
midrange.com
