help with tables
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: oracle10g SQLBEX giving 114 with Oracle Dynamic SQL Method 4(ora9 works well)
Next: compile+link Fujitsu Linux
From: William M. Klein on 1 Feb 2008 10:18 Sorry, the thread has wandered so much that I had forgotten exactly what platform this was for. Frank, If this was your question, was it for Windows, Unix, VSE, or where? I know that yours was not the ORIGINAL post, but maybe you came in when there was discussion of what "DB2" can/cannot do. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam(a)email.com> wrote in message news:87l5q3pd85q64e27c24gopoulmqobforto(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:28:17 GMT, "William M. Klein" > <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > >>In addition to Robert's manual reference, you might want to see: >> "Using a multiple-row FETCH statement with host variable arrays" at >> >> http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnapk10/2.2.2.4.1 >> >> and >> >> "Declaring host variable arrays in COBOL" at >>http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnapk10/2.4.3.6 >> >>If it matters, the latter does NOT (seem to me) to allow for OCCURS DEPENDING >>ON. >> >>and >> >>the FETCH syntax information at: >> http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnsqk10/5.65 > > The above syntax does not work on Windows/Unix versions. > There is no concepts of multiple-row fetch/insert on those versions, > unless using CLI code (DB2 API) > > This wont help Frank, or anyone else, using DB2 for Windows as he is. > > > Frederico Fonseca > ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com
From: Anonymous on 1 Feb 2008 10:27 In article <4oc6q3d8r1acm34uj2rf24mpo244djrq5n(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:43:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >>'The code-base was laid down in 1975, a decade before those features were >>available... and the shop didn't start using those features until the Y2K >>conversion in 1998 and nobody since then has authorised the budget to >>rewrite and re-test it.' > >I don't find it amusing. While and because old Cobolers were resisiting >change, the world abandoned Cobol. Mr Wagner, I'm not sure what you're calling a 'Coboler'... but authorising budget - budget for training in new features, programmer time for rewriting code and overall time-and-resources for testing changes - is a responsibility of Management. DD
From: Anonymous on 1 Feb 2008 10:32 In article <p4d6q3hg7qlidtj2sc556ttnkqtcduq5ki(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:31:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <1u65q3l1v0rcriqpa82bvev2p8j9hiqcdq(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>>Manuals are as close as your Web browser. >> >>Mr Wagner, I saw my first DB2 installation in 1987... and I worked on >>sites where consultants/contractors/hired guns were not allowed web-access >>into the mid-1990s. > >I worked at place with such a policy in 2001. So, Mr Wagner... since you worked as such a place at some point is it reasonable to conclude that you are working at such a place now? DD
From: Robert on 1 Feb 2008 13:52 On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:32:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >In article <p4d6q3hg7qlidtj2sc556ttnkqtcduq5ki(a)4ax.com>, >Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:31:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >>>In article <1u65q3l1v0rcriqpa82bvev2p8j9hiqcdq(a)4ax.com>, >>>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >> >>>>Manuals are as close as your Web browser. >>> >>>Mr Wagner, I saw my first DB2 installation in 1987... and I worked on >>>sites where consultants/contractors/hired guns were not allowed web-access >>>into the mid-1990s. >> >>I worked at place with such a policy in 2001. > >So, Mr Wagner... since you worked as such a place at some point is it >reasonable to conclude that you are working at such a place now? Web access is almost universal nowadays. But they need SOME way to lower contractors' social status. Denial of VPN access is a popular choice. Chicago roads were terrible this morning due to a snowstorm. Contractors had to drive in it while employees worked from home. The parking lot was more than half empty. There is no valid security reason when SecureID is used. VPN ports don't cost anything in royalties. Other places restrict contractors to one entry door. The reason is because administrators are too lazy to set them up in the security system, but it also serves as a social marker.
From: Judson McClendon on 1 Feb 2008 16:55
"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > > I don't find it amusing. While and because old Cobolers were resisiting > change, the world abandoned Cobol. Note past tense; it already happened. There were many other reasons for the demise of COBOL than resistance to change by old-timers. And I think a lot of the resistance was because the old-timers knew that the new OO paradigm, for example, fit COBOL like a square peg in a round hole. I always knew that one of COBOL's greatest strengths was it's simplicity. Add OO, destroy the simplicity. The things that make COBOL great for its heyday are also things that do not fit current development paradigms. Another of COBOL's great strengths was the Data Division, and the ease and power of the hierarchical structures and data formatting in the Picture clause. But with standardized databases, XML, et al, those became irrelevant. Consider Pete Dashwood. He embraced and championed OO COBOL diligently for years. But Pete has abandoned COBOL for other languages better suited to today's development needs. I don't want to put words in Pete's mouth, but I don't think his decision had anything to do with resistance by old-timers; I believe it was based on pragmatic evaluation of the relative strengths of the tools in today's development environment. I've made a similar change. I still support my clients who use COBOL, but I don't foresee developing any new systems in COBOL, except for those clients who want it. And they are steadily moving away from COBOL. To me it is clear that, if Old Cobolers, as you put it, had jumped on change as eagerly as anyone, we would still be watching COBOL's demise, maybe even sooner. Their openness to change would have propelled them inevitably to the same objective conclusions about current development realities that me, and I think Pete also, to change. COBOL, in any form, just does not fit well into today's webcentric development environment, and no one here feels more regret over the passing of that simpler era than I do. -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." |