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: Anonymous on 1 Feb 2008 05:20 In article <nf75q39s8qf77gqv8rs034td6euo3e2lf0(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:42:11 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <mkj3q3pmtvmn64pjnhk0s3mfcgplas1hcs(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:26:34 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>> >>>>In article <gfl2q319rd84spnb10q3f9huuvjq2254f9(a)4ax.com>, >>>>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:37:24 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <bav1q3t26jjt26156j9eh4lpp1ivtot9a0(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>That's similar to a way I have seen things done on mainframes, yes... but >>>>>>>>a way that would not pass muster in more than a few shops where I've >>>>>>>>worked and would have gotten you laughed out of Prod Implementation >>>>>>>>reviews. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've never seen a Prod Implementation review. I've only seen reviews >>>>>>>BEFORE testing began. >>>>>>>Sounds like you're putting untested rewrites into production. >>>>>> >>>>>>That might be due to the fact that it is something you admit to being >>>>>>outside of your experience, Mr Wagner; a Prod Implementation review can >>>>>>require a programmer to submit test results. >>>>> >>>>>In my experience, test results are checked by TEST TEAMS, who run pair, >>>>>integration, >>>>>system, regression and performance tests. Each test case is evidenced by >>>>>a document >>>>>showing expected versus actual, and signed in blood. >>>> >>>>Now think of expanding your experience, Mr Wagner... and imagine that the >>>>TEST TEAM (caps original) makes a copy of their documentation... and >>>>returns it (in exchange for a signature, of course), to the programmer... >>> >>>Tests plans and results, along with all other project documentation, >>>reside in a framework >>>repository that's accessible to everyone. There is no reason to print >them out. >> >>Mr Wagner, in 'more than a few shops where I have worked' such things were >>not always available; that was the reason to print them out. > >It's hard to believe they don't have a network connecting desktop PCs. Some people, Mr Wagner, might just, possibly, have experiences which antedate the widespread dissemination of PCs... or their very invention. [snip] >>>Our meetings are held in cyberspace using NetMeeting or similar. >>>Participants are all over >>>the world; they are not sitting in a room. >> >>Not everyone's meetings were what your meetings are, Mr Wagner... you do >>realise that 'where I have worked' might encompass a portion of space/time >>that's more than a few decades past, don't you? > >Check your calendar. It may be running slow. I've used a variety of calendars, Mr Wagner... and they all seem to be running just fine. 'Where I have worked' still holds a 'when' which is different - sometimes - from 'where I am working'. DD
From: Anonymous on 1 Feb 2008 05:31 In article <1u65q3l1v0rcriqpa82bvev2p8j9hiqcdq(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:35:24 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <29n2q3p0caoh922pmsenajrl1niln3j4m3(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:38:23 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>><dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>>>news:jof2q31shvbu6d9ia1i7gelptabq9slahe(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:39:28 -0700, "Frank Swarbrick" >>>>> <Frank.Swarbrick(a)efirstbank.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> SQL0060W The "COBOL" precompiler is in progress. >>>>>> 19 SQL0008N The token "occurs" found in a host variable >>>>>> declaration is not valid. >>>>>> 41 SQL4943W The number of host variables in the INTO clause >>>>>> is not the same as the number of items in the SELECT >>>>>> clause. SQLSTATE=01503 >>>>> >>>>> The manual says DB2 doesn't allow a simple SELECT to return multiple rows. >>>>> You must do the >>>>> SELECT in a cursor declaration and read the table with a single FETCH, as >>>>> illustrated by >>>>> Frederico. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the experiment. >>>>> >>>> >>>>While I don't claim the same level of SQL knowledge that you have >>>>demonstrated, Robert, I have managed to use it successfully for a number of >>>>years. >>>> >>>>Obviously you CAN return multiple rows from a query if you can process a >>>>result set, however, in embedded SQL I've always used the cursor and FETCHed >>>>it. If the web exists - which it did not, >>> >>>Many Cobol programmers think it's not possible to get a result set, >>>except by FETCHing one >>>row at a time. They regard a database as VSAM on drugs. >> >>Ummmmm... many COBOL programmers I know work with DB2, Mr Wagner; didn't >>you mention something about what the manual said regarding this in another >>post? > >I said above that a simple SELECT is limited to one row, a FETCH is not. You've said many things, Mr Wagner. Are you able to provide some code that can be tested against DB2 so what actually *works* might be demonstrated? > >>(I have, certainly, seen DB2 installations where the database is treated >>in programs as though it were VSAM... and then a few of the 'power users' >>get access and training in QMF (training for the programmers usually >>consisted of 'The managers went to the classes... and they slept; here's a >>manual and remember, we're trying to keep things as much in The Old Way as >>possible') and rather... pretty confrontations could result.) > >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. DD
From: Anonymous on 1 Feb 2008 05:43 In article <4cfe888b-a425-4734-a325-d031b00b4d66(a)c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Richard <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Feb 1, 5:29 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:42:11 +0000 (UTC), docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >In article <mkj3q3pmtvmn64pjnhk0s3mfcgplas1...(a)4ax.com>, >> >Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >> >>Tests plans and results, along with all other project documentation, >> >>reside in a framework >> >>repository that's accessible to everyone. There is no reason to print them out. >> >> >Mr Wagner, in 'more than a few shops where I have worked' such things were >> >not always available; that was the reason to print them out. >> >> It's hard to believe they don't have a network connecting desktop PCs. Make a public >> directory on any machine. Use directories to create a framework. > >You appear to miss completely the point of English having tenses. Mr Plinston, Mr Wagner might benefit from sitting this one out... but he perhaps he could have the next tense. > >'worked' may refer to 1972, which would have made your reference to >'desktop PCs', 'network' and 'public directory' rather mystifying to >them at that time. I am not sure how Doc would know what they do at >this, or any intermediate, time. I received a private email about this, saying that I didn't specify I was referring to times prior to the PC's invention... my response, naturally enough, was that I didn't specify I was referring to times after it, either. It might be seen as moderately amusing what has happened when someone who frequently disparages 'the way things were done' confronts an example of 'how things were'. 'What kind of foolishments are these? This IF is coded across screens and screens, why wasn't it broken down into an EVALUATE and some in-line PERFORMs?' '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.' DD
From: Robert on 1 Feb 2008 10:02 On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:43:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >It might be seen as moderately amusing what has happened when someone who >frequently disparages 'the way things were done' confronts an example of >'how things were'. > >'What kind of foolishments are these? This IF is coded across screens and >screens, why wasn't it broken down into an EVALUATE and some in-line >PERFORMs?' > >'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. Note past tense; it already happened.
From: Robert on 1 Feb 2008 10:07
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. When I needed to look something up in a manual, I drove home to do it. Time per lookup was 30-45 minutes. Only gubbermint gets away with such inefficiency. |