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 *