"David Cressey" <cressey73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:GcO7k.7467$qb7.5691@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> > Get the programmors off their ***** and tell them to learn how to
write
>> > dynamic SQL.
>>
>> Hmm, better watch it here. :-) Both he and I are programmers.
>> Though I'm not sure where dynamic SQL comes in to play here.
>
> I'm not sure how dynamic SQL applies either...
I'd better explain then, since someone else queried it.
When the OTLT is combined with EAV you seem to be able to get away with
having a single maintenance function. If you abandon OTLT and have
multiple
lookup tables then EAV is seen to be as stupid as it is, and so that gets
abandoned too. At which point it seems you need a distinct maintenance
function for each lookup table. Dymanic SQL allows you to code a single
maintenance function because you can adapt to different numbers of columns
and columns of different types.
Obviously this is not an issue with interfaces like ODBC and JDBC, where
you
already code at a low level similar to dynamic SQL, but it is unfamiliar
to
Cobol programmers and their kind, who are used to embedded SQL.
Roy
|
