At 03:09 PM 5/6/97 +0500, Arun G wrote:
>Recently  we  received  a request  for  enhancing  FTP/iX  to  support
>database  files.  I am  currently  investigating  the  usefulness  and
>possibilities of this enhancement request.
>
>Enhancement proposal:
>
>The request was to have a FTP command  called DBMGET to "copy all PRIV
>mode  files  with  entries in the root file that are part of the given
>TurboIMAGE database".

Depending upon what you mean by 'entries in the rootfile', this approach
may not work for users which utilize OMNIDEX, which has external IMAGE files
to maintain indexing information. It would not present a problem for SUPERDEX
because SUPERDEX maintains its index information in 1 to 8 IMAGE datasets
which are specified in the rootfile like any other dataset.

I would assume if this enhancement is progressed that it will also
detect/support the b-tree index files in the HFS space as well


>For  example,  for  TurboImage  database  with root file  name as ZZZ,
>DBMGET  ZZZ  should  copy all the  related  privileged  files  for the
>database  (such as  ZZZ01,  ZZZ02 and so on for  datasets,  zzz01.001,
>zzz01.002 and so on for the jumbo data set ZZZ01).
>
>Alternative:
>
>The current  version of FTP, which is in beta testing now and planning
>to be part of 5.5 Express 3, supports  FTPing  privileged  files.  So,
>the above can be achieved by the FTP command  "MGET ZZZ@" for datasets
>and "MGET ./zzz@" for jumbo data sets.
>
>Questions:
>
>With MGET supporting privileged files, do you still require the DBMGET
>command?.  If so, why MGET is not sufficient?

I tend to agree that with MGET, one does not need a DBMGET, especially if
there is a great deal of effort in providing it.  Sure, it could be useful
for geographically separate sites to pass a small database.  But if the
base is very large, instead of saturating a network with a potentially huge
amount of data, it would probably be better and more reliable to overnight
a DAT.  And for small bases which would probably be the case, if FTP already
allows one to transfer PRIV files/filesets, then I'm not sure the additional
effort on the part of a user offsets the development effort (not knowing
what it might be).  Besides, if PRIV files themselves are supported, one
could easily write
a command file or MPEX script to accomplish the same thing simply be detecting
what files are involved and supplying the list to FTP.

Say, does the enhancement support indirect file lists (e.g. !fileset)?


>Looking  forward  to your  timely  response  on this  issue.  We would
>appreciate your response by May 8, 1997.

Thanks for the opportunity!

/jf