Re: Database I/O Modernization -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Database I/O Modernization
From: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:52:09 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9/8/2017 5:40 PM, Nathan Andelin wrote:

Is this type of interface familiar to you?

Yes.

What are the pros and cons of replacing existing I/O op codes with such
procedure calls?

Pro: Can't discern an advantage to this particular type of implementation.

Con: Non-standard unit-record I/O with more compile-time overhead and
more run-time overhead is no way to modernise.

Is this as an effective form of application modernization?

Adding Yet Another Dependent Layer is regressive.

Would you recommend a different type of interface?

Embedded SQL.

'Modern' for midrangers isn't about a particular I/O syntax. It's about
decoupling the logic from the database.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Database I/O Modernization , Nathan Andelin

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.