Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
I'll toss out my 2 cents on this. I place a high degree on the accuracy of dict items. That is, they represent a consistent representation of the file layouts between MV flavours and different applications. Whether Eclipse, SB+, other 4GL's or green screen, they all hve this common denominator. Balancing many clients with their differnet environments, the dicts are my friend. I have a utility that I use against any file to match up the 'natural' dict items to their values and produce a 2 colum 40 field 'Form View' of any file. THis assist me greatly to learn and maintain a file outside of the app. We all know that field 39 on the screen isn't necessarily attr 39. Thus I have a bone to pick with any previous programmers who place data into a field without some dict item helping me. Sure the app works with REC<39> but trying to locate within the programs how field 39 gets populated or what it stands for is a challenge. Dates are pretty obvious but that's about it. For VAR-level systems, I would consider it negligent to install a system with data in fields that have no dict items. I'm not talking temp-like files. I'm talking CUSTOMER, PRODUCT etc files. One in particular has 001=NAME and 004=CITY with nothing on 002 or 003. Sometimes it's obvious and other times it's not. What I dislike are multiple use files like RESULTS PRODUCT or SAS SR.CF where there truly more than one data design sharing the same file, depending on the key. Thus the dict items are dependent on which record they are using. Then and now there are 4GL's that use the dict items either directly or indirectly to hold parameters. This is a step towards the SQL based systems that require data definitions. Sure, we can exist without dict items. But it's a lot harder and goes against the original purpose and design of our beloved 'post-relational' database. My 2 cents. - Original Message - From: "Mike Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:02 AM Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > I guess it depends on who was at the controls at design time. I've seen > some systems where the dictionaries were like bibles in their exactness. > I've also seen the flipside of that. > > It all comes down to design and coding standards. I had the good fortune of > starting my pick career with a software company (wy back in the > prehistoric days) who emphasized standards and controls and it sort of stuck > with me. > > Sometimes the only way to figure that stuff out is to do what you suggest > and write utilities and manually go through code. Hopefully, you get some > good code to look at. > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:42 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > > Mike: Do you recommend a utility to 'scan' an application (progs & procs) > for the definitions. I use the dicts as they're all in one place and I can > depend on it probably 85-90% of the time. I agree it isn't perfect like a > 'normal' db would be for definitions. > > I remember older programs that would produce a summary of the WRITES, READS, > DELETES etc on all the programs with filenames. Any clue. > > Unfortunately, the dicts are the best offering from the MV database, albiet > with flaws. > > my 1 cent. > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:33 PM > Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > > > > The records can have varying numbers of fields. From your comment about > > flaky data, my guess would be that you are using fields that are being > > written to someplace else other than what you added. > > > > Dictionaries have no impact on what Basic programs do. Fields may be > > written to a particular file and there doesn't have to be any dictionary > > present or the dict says the fields hold something totally different. The > > dictionary is only used for reporting and selection functions. As such, > > looking at the dictionary is not a reliable or even valid way of > determining > > field usage. > > > > Mike > --- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
I guess it depends on who was at the controls at design time. I've seen some systems where the dictionaries were like bibles in their exactness. I've also seen the flipside of that. It all comes down to design and coding standards. I had the good fortune of starting my pick career with a software company (wy back in the prehistoric days) who emphasized standards and controls and it sort of stuck with me. Sometimes the only way to figure that stuff out is to do what you suggest and write utilities and manually go through code. Hopefully, you get some good code to look at. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors Mike: Do you recommend a utility to 'scan' an application (progs & procs) for the definitions. I use the dicts as they're all in one place and I can depend on it probably 85-90% of the time. I agree it isn't perfect like a 'normal' db would be for definitions. I remember older programs that would produce a summary of the WRITES, READS, DELETES etc on all the programs with filenames. Any clue. Unfortunately, the dicts are the best offering from the MV database, albiet with flaws. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: "Mike Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > The records can have varying numbers of fields. From your comment about > flaky data, my guess would be that you are using fields that are being > written to someplace else other than what you added. > > Dictionaries have no impact on what Basic programs do. Fields may be > written to a particular file and there doesn't have to be any dictionary > present or the dict says the fields hold something totally different. The > dictionary is only used for reporting and selection functions. As such, > looking at the dictionary is not a reliable or even valid way of determining > field usage. > > Mike --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Mike: Do you recommend a utility to 'scan' an application (progs & procs) for the definitions. I use the dicts as they're all in one place and I can depend on it probably 85-90% of the time. I agree it isn't perfect like a 'normal' db would be for definitions. I remember older programs that would produce a summary of the WRITES, READS, DELETES etc on all the programs with filenames. Any clue. Unfortunately, the dicts are the best offering from the MV database, albiet with flaws. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: "Mike Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > The records can have varying numbers of fields. From your comment about > flaky data, my guess would be that you are using fields that are being > written to someplace else other than what you added. > > Dictionaries have no impact on what Basic programs do. Fields may be > written to a particular file and there doesn't have to be any dictionary > present or the dict says the fields hold something totally different. The > dictionary is only used for reporting and selection functions. As such, > looking at the dictionary is not a reliable or even valid way of determining > field usage. > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:22 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > > At the bottom of a data dictionary having a few dozen D-Fields, I added a > few more D-Fields. > > Inside a UniBasic application, end-users are able to read and write data to > these fields. > > Sometimes though, when listing results, some flaky data shows up. > > I am writing to inquire...is there now a requirement to "normalize" all > records such that there are "blanks" specified in the newly defined > fields...for all records ? > > In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 > fields...others with 75 fields? > > --Bill > --- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > --- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
You subscribe to it just like you did to this list. Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and insert the following: subscribe u2-community - Original Message - From: "Brutzman, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1:25 PM Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors What is the u2-community list ? --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; U2 Group Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors All, This sounds like a good conversation for the u2-community list. - Charles Barouch, Moderator -- Original Message ------------- Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:08:44 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: Jeff Schasny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U2 Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- U2 Users and U2 Community Lists - Active, vibrant, worth your time. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Bill, I dont think we was speaking of your original question (which was technical in nature). Its when responses shifted towards the sql/pick good/bad debate Brutzman, Bill wrote: What is the u2-community list ? --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; U2 Group Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors All, This sounds like a good conversation for the u2-community list. - Charles Barouch, Moderator -- Original Message - Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:08:44 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: Jeff Schasny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U2 Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Richard A. Wilson Lakeside Systems Smithfield, RI, USA --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
What is the u2-community list ? --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moderator Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; U2 Group Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors All, This sounds like a good conversation for the u2-community list. - Charles Barouch, Moderator -- Original Message - Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:08:44 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: Jeff Schasny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U2 Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- U2 Users and U2 Community Lists - Active, vibrant, worth your time. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
>From the responses, it appears that there is a bug in the UniBasic program when end-users are entering transaction data. Thanks to all those responding. --Bill --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
All, This sounds like a good conversation for the u2-community list. - Charles Barouch, Moderator -- Original Message - Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:08:44 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: Jeff Schasny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U2 Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- U2 Users and U2 Community Lists - Active, vibrant, worth your time. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Double-edged sword IMO, I'm sure you've ran into that system you're investigating and discover that there are no dictionaries or the mappings are incorrect. As I get more and more involved in the SQL databases, that reliable definition of record layouts comes up as a key advantage.The U2/Pick world's greatest strength is their flexibility. The U2/Pick world's greatest weakness is their flexibility. I guess it all depends on who's at the controls... Mike Randall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:09 PM To: U2 Group Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
I think I'd call it more of a difference in philosophy than a "feature or flaw". A basic tenent of the SQLian religion is that any operation which affects the database is performed through a single interface, that being SQL. Pickians on the other hand want to use anything that is efficient for a particular application to perform database operation so we've got your direct read/writes as well as SQL so we can pick/choose/combine at will. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's food for a good debate. The disconnect of the dictionary from the actual data stored in a U2 file. That seems to be one of the key differences between our world and the SQL databases. Feature or Flaw?? Mike Jeff Schasny | Denver, Colorado, USA | [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Feature to me. YOu can readily associate any dictionary with any data such that you can change your view: LIST myFile USING DICT otherFile At 12:37 PM 8/5/2004, you wrote: There's food for a good debate. The disconnect of the dictionary from the actual data stored in a U2 file. That seems to be one of the key differences between our world and the SQL databases. Feature or Flaw?? Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors >In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 >fields...others with 75 fields? Such a thing is not only perfectly acceptable, it's an immense benefit to using U2 over other 'normal' dbs. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/04 12:37PM >>> The disconnect of the dictionary from the actual data stored in a U2 file. Feature or Flaw?? Sharp knife. Use wisely! Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
There's food for a good debate. The disconnect of the dictionary from the actual data stored in a U2 file. That seems to be one of the key differences between our world and the SQL databases. Feature or Flaw?? Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin King Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors >In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 >fields...others with 75 fields? Such a thing is not only perfectly acceptable, it's an immense benefit to using U2 over other 'normal' dbs. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
The records can have varying numbers of fields. From your comment about flaky data, my guess would be that you are using fields that are being written to someplace else other than what you added. Dictionaries have no impact on what Basic programs do. Fields may be written to a particular file and there doesn't have to be any dictionary present or the dict says the fields hold something totally different. The dictionary is only used for reporting and selection functions. As such, looking at the dictionary is not a reliable or even valid way of determining field usage. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:22 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors At the bottom of a data dictionary having a few dozen D-Fields, I added a few more D-Fields. Inside a UniBasic application, end-users are able to read and write data to these fields. Sometimes though, when listing results, some flaky data shows up. I am writing to inquire...is there now a requirement to "normalize" all records such that there are "blanks" specified in the newly defined fields...for all records ? In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 fields...others with 75 fields? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
no you dont need to change existing records, however I would suspect that some program is already writing to what you think are new locations. Basically the dict items were never defined. create an I-type REC.LNG 001 I 002 COUNT(@RECORD,@AM) + (@RECORD NE "") etc THEN SORT file BY-DSND REC.LNG REC.LNG to see the records with the maximum number of attributes. this isnt 100% full proof since there may be some program out there that does write beyond the max # of attributes, however the logic in the program hasnt been triggered yet Rich Brutzman, Bill wrote: At the bottom of a data dictionary having a few dozen D-Fields, I added a few more D-Fields. Inside a UniBasic application, end-users are able to read and write data to these fields. Sometimes though, when listing results, some flaky data shows up. I am writing to inquire...is there now a requirement to "normalize" all records such that there are "blanks" specified in the newly defined fields...for all records ? In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 fields...others with 75 fields? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Richard A. Wilson Lakeside Systems Smithfield, RI, USA --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Bill, It is OK to have records with various number of attributes. If you wish to be consistent with the number of attributes for the records in your file, you might want to add null to the newly added fields. Grant -Original Message- From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:22 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors At the bottom of a data dictionary having a few dozen D-Fields, I added a few more D-Fields. Inside a UniBasic application, end-users are able to read and write data to these fields. Sometimes though, when listing results, some flaky data shows up. I am writing to inquire...is there now a requirement to "normalize" all records such that there are "blanks" specified in the newly defined fields...for all records ? In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 fields...others with 75 fields? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
>In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 >fields...others with 75 fields? Such a thing is not only perfectly acceptable, it's an immense benefit to using U2 over other 'normal' dbs. -Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors
Nope. But just remember - nor is it required that the "D-Fields" were defined. The application can still write to those fields. Hopefully you haven't started to use fields that the application requires somewhere. Good luck -- Colin Alfke Calgary, Alberta Canada "Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that you can't fix it" Stu Pickles >-Original Message- >From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:22 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors > > >At the bottom of a data dictionary having a few dozen >D-Fields, I added a >few more D-Fields. > >Inside a UniBasic application, end-users are able to read and >write data to >these fields. > >Sometimes though, when listing results, some flaky data shows up. > >I am writing to inquire...is there now a requirement to "normalize" all >records such that there are "blanks" specified in the newly defined >fields...for all records ? > >In other words, is it not ok to have a mix of records...some with 71 >fields...others with 75 fields? > >--Bill --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
