Conversion of data & associated logic from ISAM to RDB
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: How would you do this?
Next: COBOL dynamic allocation (putenv) of output-file won't release extra space when closed
From: Anonymous on 12 Apr 2007 10:13 In article <131sb8b2f0atpc7(a)corp.supernews.com>, Rick Smith <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote: > >"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message >news:585r42F2e105nU1(a)mid.individual.net... >[snip] >> We are then faced with the dilemma of whether we should convert or scrap >> what we have and go back to square one, or continue with what we (now...) >> know is a sub-optimum solution. Usually a balance is struck between these >> two extremes... in this case it is a conversion from ISAM to RDB; probably >> the best that can done under the circumstances. > >< http://www.microfocusworld.com/track_page.php?id=5 > >"A partner will present a session that shows how a relational >database can be used with a COBOL application using >standard COBOL I/O statements, WITHOUT any changes >to the code!" > >Perhaps the best is no conversion, at all! Just upgrade to the >latest technology. Mr Smith, come now... an organisation where the analyst recommends timestamping records... errrr, rows in a database and the manager has to turn to the UseNet for help will not, in my experience, embrace a solution which requires Spending Money to upgrade technology or sending someone of sufficient technical competence to benefit from the experience - as opposed to, say, a Corner-Office Idiot - to the Royal Pacific Resort in Orlando, FL, USA for three days. (oh... and a rather common mis-spelling in the paragraph you quoted might be seen, by some, as casting aspersions on the relibility of the claims) DD
From: Alistair on 12 Apr 2007 15:14 On 10 Apr, 00:39, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > <docdw...(a)panix.com> wrote in messagenews: > > You might have checked other things as well... there's an Olde Joke you > > might have stumbled across, say, at > >http://www.dotnetspider.com/fun/Computer-Joke-838.aspx. > > Not sure what the point is here... we have a patently incompetent > programmer, and a patently stupid Project Manager, neither of whom have any > responsibility for their actions. > > As they are both idiots, whatever their interaction is, it is of little > consequence. For this joke to work, it would be necessary to identify with > one or other of the parties. This requires us to assume the same mantle of > idiocy that they both display. > > Ah, now I see why SOME might find it amusing... :-) > > Pete I have to take issue with your description of the Programmer as being incompetent; he clearly answered the question posed in the most accurate fashion possible, volunteering more information than is strictly necessary. I wonder if there is a certain note of defensiveness in your response? I do, however, agree that the project manager is clearly incompetent (at ballooning, at boy-scout preparation, at map-reading, at eliciting information?). ;-)
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2007 06:58 "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1176405267.687547.144160(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Apr, 00:39, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> > wrote: >> <docdw...(a)panix.com> wrote in messagenews: >> > You might have checked other things as well... there's an Olde Joke you >> > might have stumbled across, say, at >> >http://www.dotnetspider.com/fun/Computer-Joke-838.aspx. >> >> Not sure what the point is here... we have a patently incompetent >> programmer, and a patently stupid Project Manager, neither of whom have >> any >> responsibility for their actions. >> >> As they are both idiots, whatever their interaction is, it is of little >> consequence. For this joke to work, it would be necessary to identify >> with >> one or other of the parties. This requires us to assume the same mantle >> of >> idiocy that they both display. >> >> Ah, now I see why SOME might find it amusing... :-) >> >> Pete > > I have to take issue with your description of the Programmer as being > incompetent; he clearly answered the question posed in the most > accurate fashion possible, volunteering more information than is > strictly necessary. Really? By what strange definition of "competence" does a person standing in a field, decide that his current location is at co-ordinates that are several hundred miles off-shore in the Atlantic Ocean? If this is your idea of the "most accurate fashion possible" I can understand how getting a job may be ..... difficult. > I wonder if there is a certain note of > defensiveness in your response? I wonder if there is a certain note of attempting to stir things in yours? > I do, however, agree that the project manager is clearly incompetent > (at ballooning, at boy-scout preparation, at map-reading, at eliciting > information?). > Yes, on that we can agree. Pete.
From: Rick Smith on 13 Apr 2007 06:58 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:evleq8$o9j$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <131sb8b2f0atpc7(a)corp.supernews.com>, > Rick Smith <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote: > > > >"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > >news:585r42F2e105nU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >[snip] > >> We are then faced with the dilemma of whether we should convert or scrap > >> what we have and go back to square one, or continue with what we (now...) > >> know is a sub-optimum solution. Usually a balance is struck between these > >> two extremes... in this case it is a conversion from ISAM to RDB; probably > >> the best that can done under the circumstances. > > > >< http://www.microfocusworld.com/track_page.php?id=5 > > >"A partner will present a session that shows how a relational > >database can be used with a COBOL application using > >standard COBOL I/O statements, WITHOUT any changes > >to the code!" > > > >Perhaps the best is no conversion, at all! Just upgrade to the > >latest technology. > > Mr Smith, come now... an organisation where the analyst recommends > timestamping records... errrr, rows in a database and the manager has to > turn to the UseNet for help will not, in my experience, embrace a solution > which requires Spending Money to upgrade technology or sending someone of > sufficient technical competence to benefit from the experience - as > opposed to, say, a Corner-Office Idiot - to the Royal Pacific Resort in > Orlando, FL, USA for three days. Apart from your alleged experience, this latest technology would reasonably permit one to identify "rows in a database" as records since there would be no difference with respect to a COBOL program, where the concept "records in a file" is common.
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2007 08:04
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:5834o5F2ecb3nU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:sNVSh.51648$6m4.42486(a)pd7urf1no... > <snip>> <snip>>> >> If/when you get a paperback, or articles on design from the Web, >> concentrate on the term 'Normalization' so that you have a handle on it. >> > > A very important observation, Jimmy. > > I have some stuff on this somewhere... I'll see if I can post it to a web > server so people can access it. > > Pete. > This has now been posted... Accessing the following link will reveal 3 documents that are worth reading if you are considering migrating ISAM to RDB.... http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dashwood/dashwood/RDBStuff/ Any or all feedback appreciated. Pete. |