Re: Are level checks still useful?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

LOL Scott - all your objections and issues were presented to the OP - he 
just would NOT use a simple SQL test for existence - which is all he 
wanted to do with this.

In everything else, he said he wants to use SQL for everything - we tried!

Vern

On 11/7/2012 12:39 PM, Scott Klement wrote:
> 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?