Richard,
We are always updating our existing code to ensure that it
is up to date and using the latest technology.
We don't want to have programs that were written 15 years
ago if there is more advanced way of doing something.
Most programmers never get the opportunity to update their
existing programs for just the reason you state
("just for the sake of the latest and greatest DB access
technique")
Our programmers do get this opportunity on a regular basis.
Just because a program is "good working code" doesn't mean
that it can't be improved.
Sometimes we just change good working Fixed format programs
to Free format for the heck of it programmers learn new
skills,
programs are easier to maintain and we end up with better
good working code
And our programmers like the fact they get to keep their
skills up to date and they don't go wondering off to another
company :)
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schoen [mailto:richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 2:02 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to
SQL
Why would you consider re-engineering good working code just
for the sake of the latest and greatest DB access technique.
My answer is absolutely leave your RLA in place. That's one
of the benefits of using RPG.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
RJS Software Systems Inc.
Where Information Meets Innovation
Document Management, Workflow, Report Delivery, Forms and
Business Intelligence
Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site:
http://www.rjssoftware.com
Tel: (952) 736-5800
Fax: (952) 736-5801
Toll Free: (888) RJSSOFT
------------------------------
message: 2
date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:06:03 -0400
from: "John Allen" <jallen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Should I replace all CHAIN, SETLL, and READs to SQL
I have been thinking about changing all CHAINs SETLLs and
READs in our software to SQL
Our programs use these operations for various reasons such
as:
Simple SETLL to check if a value is valid
Reading records for loading subfiles
Chaining by RRN (used in subfile processing, the input file
does not have a unique key so RRN is stored in Subfile then
used for accessing the original record)
Reading and chaining to several files for processing
thousands of records and doing validations, calculations
etc.
My main concern would be:
How this would affect performance
Does SQL allow for accessing records by RRN.
Does anyone have any thoughts on why this is a good or bad
idea
Thanks
John
--
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.
midrange.com
