RE: File Encapsulation Quandary

[Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt,

You could, of course, go with Jeff's idea, but have two modules in the same
service program - one containing the update routines and one containing the
read-only routines. Additionally, since there could be a lot of duplicated
code, you could put chunks of it in (gasp!) copybooks.

Frankly, I normally agree with Eric that file encapsulation may not be
worth the effort, but that's more related to the type of work that I do and
the database that I work with. Although, FWIW, I've never seen a problem
(as Eric seems to) with having a generic 'get' which retrieves all the
fields. Even when I only need a subset of the fields, it's not like it's a *
problem* that they're all returned - I just use some and ignore others.

Rory
On Apr 4, 2012 8:38 AM, "Kurt Anderson" <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Rory,
>
> Interesting idea on the dual F-specs for the same file.  Similarly I'd
> have to have two files per logical as well, although our files encapsulated
> by service programs generally suffice on the keyed physical.   I'll have to
> think on that (and when I get time, play with coding it).  I think two
> files wouldn't be too bad to implement into one of our service programs for
> testing since the newer ones already access a data structure with the Gets
> and Sets procedures.
>
> Jeff, I suppose that could be a consideration, although I think Rory's
> idea of using two F-specs might reduce the duplication that 2 service
> programs would create.
>
> I appreciate the feedback and ideas.
>
> Thanks,
> Kurt