Re: SQL database object names longer than 10 characters and mixed case?

On 11/1/2010 5:07 AM, Bruce Hoffman wrote:

On 10/31/2010 07:33 PM, Joe Pluta wrote:

Nonsense. In the first place, you shouldn't be making regular changes
to your database; ALTER TABLE is no substitute for good database
design.

Now who's in their own little world? Real life, change happens. It's not
bad design that causes changes, it's reaction, and even action, to
external influences. For me, it's not a matter of saying "here's your
database" and walking away. I've watched change (both good and bad)
happen to good and bad databases, SQL and non-SQL for more than 30 years.

But how often do external influences require you to change the elements in yoru existing tables? Seriously? Adding tables or even columns to existing tables, sure. But changing the elements themselves? What, alpha to numeric? That's going to happen magically by just changing the table?

I don't think so. I think the idea that all database changes are completely isolated from the programs in SQL is just silly. The ability to change your database ad hoc doesn't absolve you of correct design. Every external program that uses that column is going to change (Excel spreadsheets, ODBC access, you name it.).

Is it easier to change if all your access is through SQL? Yes. Is that a good reason to throw away RLA? No. It's a business decision, and I guess it depends on whether you have a more or less stable design.

As for the "old and outdated" bullpuckey, I assume you're telling
everyone to dump RPG as a development language as well, since it's old
and outdated. I haven't seen you advocating that Bruce, am I wrong?

Not my argument... perception of those above...

Boss: "We gotta add a field for _blah_ to the customer master file."
iManager: "Ok, we gotta recompile 8000 programs. What's happening this
weekend?"
MySQLDBA: "Hey, we're done."
Boss: "Why does it take so long to get changes done on the i?"

This is a lie. With a logical, it's just as easy to add a field to the customer master with RLA as it is with SQL. C'mon, Bruce, you can do better.

And no, I don't tell people to stop using RPG IV, just RPG III and II.

So you advocate an old tool to access a new database. Cool.

More blah blah. Use logicals. Change the physical using CHGPF.
Everybody's happy. I can't believe it's 2010 and we're still having
this argument.

Really? Now you want to use CHGPF, just a moment ago you said that using
ALTER TABLE is bad. Do you know what CHGPF is? And relying upon the
existence of logical files, complete with their record format level
indicators, does not relieve you of the binding to the physical
structure of the data.

I think doing CHGPF on a regular basis is as bad as doing ALTER TABLE on a regular basis. It means you didn't do your design work. I was simply pointing out that you can do the same thing in RLA that you can in SQL.

"Bindind to the physical structure of the data". Not a bad thing in my book.

Yeah, okay, a second valid point. But you see, unlike you I recommend
taking advantage of the incredible strengths and versatility of the IBM
i and use each technique as appropriate. I use SQL all the time, and I
also use RLA.

Just because you like the big shiny hammer of SQL doesn't make every
programming problem a nail, Bruce.

RPG RLA is the hammer. SQL is the Swiss Army knife to database.

Whatever. My philosophy uses both. Yours doesn't. Business decision.

Joe

P.S. Dieter? *That's* a flame. You didn't even get a warm breeze...
<smile>

No argument there, but we've all seen your posts before. You don't want
anybody hearing an opposing view, unless it's yours.

Bye bye now.

They're hearing your opposing view just fine Bruce. And as I noted, it's a business decision. If you'd prefer that your clients suffer with slower access and fewer tools in order to make your life easier, then that's cool by me. And I suppose there are instances where it makes sense.

Just not every instance.

I mean seriously, who's being stubborn? I say use both, you say NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, don't use RLA!

Who is the party of No here, Bruce?

Joe