Re: Are level checks still useful? -- RPG400-L

× 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.

This essentially does the same thing as LVLCHK(*NO) -- it's just an alternate way of throwing away all of your safeguards.

But, this technique also throws away the ability to use proper keylists, leaving you with the keylist possibilities we had in the age of program-described files.

Yuck.

Sorry -- but what is the fascination with doing things wrong? Why not either use level checks as they should be used, or use SQL to obviate them? What good does it do to find alternate ways of disabling the safety net?

On 11/7/2012 12:15 PM, Nathan Andelin wrote:

There was a tip on Linkedin last night for people who are struggling with file level checks. It seemed to be worth considering, so I wrote a small program to test the idea. This is a program that performs setll, read, write, update, and delete operations against a table:
http://www.radile.com/rdweb/temp/rla110.txt

With this structure, no file level checks are reported at runtime even though the file is defined with LVLCHK(*YES), new fields have been added, using alter table, the program was NOT recompiled, and it seems to run flawlessly.
Thoughts?

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.