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 *