We are still DDS also but I think all the IBM tools like DSPFFD don't care of the table was created using DDS or DDL. DSPFFD still shows the same results. And your actually talking about scanning display and printer files which have nothing to do with DDL. A DSPFFD against a printer file that used fields from DDS defined tables and DDL defined tables will look the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JK
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:42 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: DDS modernization - use of REFFLD
All,
Yesterday I received a change request that requires an existing PF field to
be increased in size. The actual program changes are trivial - the main
effort will be to identify which display files and printer files use that
field and verify that no other information will be overlaid by the new,
longer field.
Even if we didn't have a cross-reference utility, in our DDS-defined system
this would be fairly simple - dump the DSPFFD to an outfile and query for
the appropriate REFFLD.
Without a utility, I'm not sure how you'd do the equivalent task in a
DDL-defined system. Query the column-label or column-text and hope that the
designer specified everything consistently?
This is not intended as a criticism of DDL, I'm only trying to understand
how you DDL-guys tackle situations like this. If we end up redefining
everything in DDL, what other things should we watch out for?
Many thanks, JK
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
