× 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.



Alan,

The hole in your thought pattern is from missing the point of
commitment control.

If you STRCMTCTL LCKLVL(*ALL), the first record read will remain
locked to your job while you read the second and then both will remain
locked while you reread the first.

In other words:
- read rec 1, rec 1 locked
- read rec 2, rec 1 & rec 2 locked
- read rec 1, rec 1 & rec 2 locked
- delete rec 1, rec 1 & rec 2 locked
- update rec 2, rec 1 & rec 2 locked
- commit, no records locked

HTH,
Charles

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Alan Shore <AlanShore@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Birgitta and Rory and others,
thanks for your reply  with more or less the same procedure
The reason why I am leaning to using 2 separate files (one for update, the
other for delete) is that once I have chained the 2 records from each file,
I know that both exist, they cannot disappear, and they cannot change.
Using one file, I have to be sure that both records exist AND in between
getting one record, then the other, then the first again for deletion
saving the data first, then the second one again, there is NO guarantee
that the one is still there.
What are the chances that the second one has been deleted in this scenario
- EXTREMELY slim
But good old Mister Murphy and his law stipulates that at some point in
time, THIS WILL HAPPEN. I know, I speak from experience.
Obviously if someone can see a hole in my thought pattern, I will always
listen to their point of view. I'm no genius. Speak to my wife.



Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Distribution
E:AShore@xxxxxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill



            "Birgitta Hauser"
            <Hauser@sss-softw
            are.de>                                                    To
            Sent by:                  "'RPG programming on the IBM i /
            rpg400-l-bounces@         System i'" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
            midrange.com                                               cc

                                                                  Subject
            11/18/2009 01:07          AW: D-spec using the same file name
            AM                        twice


            Please respond to
             RPG programming
             on the IBM i /
                System i
            <rpg400-l@midrang
                 e.com>






Hi,

maybe I'm wrong, but why not using the same file as follows:
1. Read the record (for Delete) into a data structure.
2. Delete the record
3. Read the record (for Update) into another data structure
4. Move the saved/delete data structure into the second/update one (with
either MOVE/EVAL or EVAL-CORR) and replace/reset the key value(s) in the
second data structure
5. Update the second record out of the data structure

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Birgitta Hauser

"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." (Les
Brown)
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." (Derek Bok)
"What is worse than training your staff and losing them? Not training them
and keeping them!"

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im
Auftrag von Alan Shore
Gesendet: Tuesday, 17. November 2009 21:58
An: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Betreff: Re: D-spec using the same file name twice


Thanks for your reply Booth
Maybe the choice of the word key was the wrong choice Here is my example
the
key to the customer file is by customer number
2 records exist the customer file
customer number 1
customer number 5,400,247
They are in fact the same person, so we need to "merge" the data from
customer number  5,400,247 into customer number 1 Update customer number 1
delete customer number  5,400,247

I think it would be easier (maintenance wise) to have 2 separate files,
both
keyed by customer number. One file is to update. The other file is to
delete
Is this fool proof - no, but in the long run, it will be simpler (my
opinion
for what its worth)



Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Distribution
E:AShore@xxxxxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill



            Booth Martin
            <booth@xxxxxxxxxx
            om>                                                        To
            Sent by:                  RPG programming on the IBM i /
            rpg400-l-bounces@         System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
            midrange.com                                               cc

                                                                  Subject
            11/17/2009 03:44          Re: D-spec using the same file name
            PM                        twice


            Please respond to
             RPG programming
             on the IBM i /
                System i
            <rpg400-l@midrang
                 e.com>






Curiosity has the best of me.  You are saying "the same key" which says to
me that the file is not keyed uniquely, and that there could well be more
than two records with the same key.  Hence my curiosity:

How do you get the particular & specific record(s) that you want to get?


Alan Shore wrote:
Afternoon all

I know at one point, what I am about to ask is not feasible in RPG
(COBOL is another matter), but the last time I asked this was when I
had first moved over from mainframe COBOL to AS/400 RPG. (TOO many
moons ago)

Can you specify the same file name (physical or logical) more than
once
in
a program?

I want to process 2 separate records by using the same key, or do I
have
to
create a new logical with the same key as the file that already exists?

I almost forgot - we are on V5r4


As always - many thanks in anticipation



Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Distribution
E:AShore@xxxxxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill

--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or
change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.


--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.


--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.