I think that PowerHouse also uses the @ list.
regards,
Robert W.Mills
Systems Development Manager
Windsong Services
(020) 8309 3604
HP-3000 Systems Discussion wrote:
> I think your way's correct, and I think the @ list was generally used
> as a lazy man's solution, worked around via compile-everything.
>
> There's no reason you can't put a specific item list in a copylib.
>
> Tracy (lazy as anybody) Pierce
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adriana & Timothy Atwood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Using the "@" list in TurboIMAGE
>>
>>
>> Nope, I never use "@". Everything at every shop were I had
>> any say over the
>> standards was done exactly as you describe. First an explicit
>> list then use
>> the "*" for current list.
>>
>> Works too. One of the systems I am currently looking after
>> has over 400
>> Cobol programs. I change databases to fulfill new
>> requirements all the time.
>> Never have to waste time recompiling hundreds of programs.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, there is never any good reason to
>> use "@". List
>> processing overhead? If done as described so the lists are
>> only processed
>> once, I have never noticed any significant impact in list processing.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Walter Murray" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:17 PM
>> Subject: [HP3000-L] Using the "@" list in TurboIMAGE
>>
>>
>>> [My apologies if this is a duplicate for some readers. I had
>>> trouble last week with some of my postings not making the jump
>>> through the gateway to 3000-L.]
>>>
>>> When I learned IMAGE yea many years ago, I got the notion
>> that the right
>> way
>>> to call DBGET and related procedures was with an explicit list
>>> parameter specifying the particular items of interest. If I was
>>> concerned with the overhead of processing such a list, I could
>>> establish a "current list", typically by doing a directed read to
>>> record 0 (which I knew would return condition 12) and using "*;" in
>>> subsequent calls. The theory was that, if there were structural
>>> changes to the database, such as new items added to the dataset, it
>>> would not be necessary to change and recompile any programs that
>>> did not use the new items.
>>>
>>> In practice, however, it seems as though everybody just uses "@;"
>>> all the time. The buffer layout gets put into a COPY library. If
>>> items are added or modified, you have to track down every program
>>> that uses that dataset and, at a minimum, recompile it. If you
>>> miss one, mysterious things happen, as when the program's buffer
>>> becomes too short for the newly enlarged dataset layout.
>>>
>>> Am I correct in my belief, based on admittedly limited observation,
>>> that practically everybody always uses an "@;" list? If so, is
>>> there any good reason for this? Is "@;" faster than "*;"? If so,
>>> why? And is it enough faster to justify the risk and inconvenience
>>> of having to recompile many programs whenever a minor structural
>>> database change is made? Or am I missing something more
>>> significant?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Walter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>>> Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
>>> in the
>> World! >100,000
>> Newsgroups
>>> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>>> =---
>>>
>>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
