RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Charles: After working in both environments for years, I would never say the UniData philosophy was to "do it right"! Perhaps it was "to not lose a lawsuit"! :-) Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Stevenson, Charles >Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:48 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD > >I've always thought that there was a difference of philosophy >from Day 1 that underlied the 2 organizations that manifests >itself in the >software: > >Vmark/UV: "All things to all men, that I might by all means >sell to some." > (If you'll allow me to misquote St. Paul.) > >UniData: "Do it right." > They took the opportunity to recreate MV & PI "in their > own image." (I'm continuing to bastardize the Bible.) > >There are pluses & minuses to each approach. I am NOT arguing >which is better, just that some differences in the products >can be explained in terms of the respective philosophies of >the organizations. [snipped] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Oops, yes, that is what I meant. Thanks. --dawn On 4/30/07, Lance J. Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: that is PI/pc not PI/Open that came from Cosmos... Dawn Wolthuis wrote: > Yes, I second (or third) that. PI/Open came from the Rev folks and had > nothing to do with UniVerse until it was acquired it after Prime's > demise. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
that is PI/pc not PI/Open that came from Cosmos... Dawn Wolthuis wrote: Yes, I second (or third) that. PI/Open came from the Rev folks and had nothing to do with UniVerse until it was acquired it after Prime's demise. --dawn --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Yes, I second (or third) that. PI/Open came from the Rev folks and had nothing to do with UniVerse until it was acquired it after Prime's demise. --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. Take and give some delight today On 4/30/07, Lance J. Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PI/pc was a specialized version of Revelation. It was somewhat popular for a short period of time. Nope, PI/Open had no relationship to uniVerse. Jerry wrote: > I also believe that the original PI for the PC was a Vmark > implementation but it could have been Revelation. At the time when I > left Prime, in January 1990, PI-Open did not exist or a least it > wasn't being offered yet. > Jerry > > - Original Message - From: "Richard Nuckolls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:47 PM > Subject: Spam:Re: Spam:Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD > > >> Thanks Lance, >> >> Ah, I had forgotten about PI/EXL. I could not believe that >> Universe had anything to do with the core of PI/Open. >> >> -Rick >> On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Lance J. Andersen wrote: >> >>> We rebranded a a version of uniVerse as PI/EXL prior to the release >>> of PI/Open. PI/Open, was *not* from vmark, it was created >>> internally at Prime, with most of the work done at the Prime UK >>> facility. Martin Phillips was part of the UK team. >>> >>> -lance >>> >>> Jerry wrote: If I remember correctly Vmark built the first releases of PI on Unix for Prime. >> --- >> u2-users mailing list >> u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >> To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > --- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
PI/pc was a specialized version of Revelation. It was somewhat popular for a short period of time. Nope, PI/Open had no relationship to uniVerse. Jerry wrote: I also believe that the original PI for the PC was a Vmark implementation but it could have been Revelation. At the time when I left Prime, in January 1990, PI-Open did not exist or a least it wasn't being offered yet. Jerry - Original Message - From: "Richard Nuckolls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:47 PM Subject: Spam:Re: Spam:Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD Thanks Lance, Ah, I had forgotten about PI/EXL. I could not believe that Universe had anything to do with the core of PI/Open. -Rick On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Lance J. Andersen wrote: We rebranded a a version of uniVerse as PI/EXL prior to the release of PI/Open. PI/Open, was *not* from vmark, it was created internally at Prime, with most of the work done at the Prime UK facility. Martin Phillips was part of the UK team. -lance Jerry wrote: If I remember correctly Vmark built the first releases of PI on Unix for Prime. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
I also believe that the original PI for the PC was a Vmark implementation but it could have been Revelation. At the time when I left Prime, in January 1990, PI-Open did not exist or a least it wasn't being offered yet. Jerry - Original Message - From: "Richard Nuckolls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:47 PM Subject: Spam:Re: Spam:Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD Thanks Lance, Ah, I had forgotten about PI/EXL. I could not believe that Universe had anything to do with the core of PI/Open. -Rick On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Lance J. Andersen wrote: We rebranded a a version of uniVerse as PI/EXL prior to the release of PI/Open. PI/Open, was *not* from vmark, it was created internally at Prime, with most of the work done at the Prime UK facility. Martin Phillips was part of the UK team. -lance Jerry wrote: If I remember correctly Vmark built the first releases of PI on Unix for Prime. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
My memory is a bit rusty, I think we released the first release of PI/Open in 1989. Richard Nuckolls wrote: Google sez: Vmark was founded in 1984; Unidata in 1986. I did not find a date for PI/Open. If I remember correctly Vmark built the first releases of PI on Unix for Prime. Highly doubtful. Vmark was a direct competitor of Prime. The original Prime Information was written by Devcom in Bellevue, Wa, in the very late '70's. Substantial portions were written in PMA (Prime macro-assembler). Most of the rest was written in Fortran or Bootstrapped in Basic. PI/Open was a fresh start, written by a collection of Brit's, in large part, who did a good job of separating/abstracting the function of the product from the OS that it was running on. They rewrote the product from scratch in C. Prime was parted out in 1988, and I think that may have been when Vmark bought PI/Open. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
All of this sounds right to me. I had jumped ship by this time. Tom Dodds -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Nuckolls Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:18 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD Okay, I have been sucked into this conversation: > I would also > suggest that if the UniData folks were satisfied with PI/PI Open/ > UniVerse, > they would not have gone to the trouble of creating UniData. The early versions of Unidata were poor cousins to PI/Open (imho). One of the Unidata engineers sat in our offices many years ago and said that their versions of Basic and the query language were based directly on the Prime Information manuals. ( They did not have a copy of PI in the office while they were working to emulate it.) My understanding is that Unidata had a database, and was looking for an established market that they could enter with it; they chose the MV market. Vmark (which predated Unidata by a number of years, I believe) saw an opportunity to move the MV market from Reality and Primos to Unix, which they correctly perceived as supplanting the existing proprietary minicomputers of the time. It took several years after Vmark released Universe for Prime to release their (excellent) Unix version of Prime-Information. Prime failed for familiar reasons: Their development and marketing structure was based on the high-margins of proprietary systems, and they were the target of a prolonged hostile takeover attempt, which dissuaded customers from updating their equipment and cost the company the farm. In retrospect, Unix had probably doomed them; I doubt that they could have shifted their structure fast enough to be successful with it. :-) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Google sez: Vmark was founded in 1984; Unidata in 1986. I did not find a date for PI/Open. If I remember correctly Vmark built the first releases of PI on Unix for Prime. Highly doubtful. Vmark was a direct competitor of Prime. The original Prime Information was written by Devcom in Bellevue, Wa, in the very late '70's. Substantial portions were written in PMA (Prime macro-assembler). Most of the rest was written in Fortran or Bootstrapped in Basic. PI/Open was a fresh start, written by a collection of Brit's, in large part, who did a good job of separating/abstracting the function of the product from the OS that it was running on. They rewrote the product from scratch in C. Prime was parted out in 1988, and I think that may have been when Vmark bought PI/Open. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Hi, Jim Todhunter and Phil (can't remember his surname - not me although I did work at VMark later on) were behind the development of UV. There were also some people who came over from Prime of who Pete Simmonson (sp?) was one I believe. Mark Baldridge or Glenn Herbert can probably confirm this as they have been around the companies who have owned UV the longest probably. Cheers, Phil. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2007 6:00 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD Sorry Bill but thats not correct. Both UV and UD were developed around the same time by two separate companies, UV by Vmark and UD by (amazingly enough) Unidata. Both were written in C. UV was introduced (IIRC) about a year before UD. Both were Unix based implementations of Prime Computers (Primos based) Prime Information product. Brutzman, Bill wrote: > The story that I remember is that UD was a major overhaul re-write of UV > using the C language. > > At the time, UD got the benefit of some C technology. From some point of > view, there has been some leap-frogging. > [SNIP] > -- Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA jschasnyATgmailDotcom --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
On 4/30/07, Richard Nuckolls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay, I have been sucked into this conversation: Ditto. > I would also > suggest that if the UniData folks were satisfied with PI/PI Open/ > UniVerse, > they would not have gone to the trouble of creating UniData. Given the little I know of the various personalities, I think the UDT developers would have gone ahead anyway. The initial developer had a "vision" which is what he told the judge when UniData is became one of the few "Pickalikes" to win the lawsuit brought against them by Dick Pick and co. The early versions of Unidata were poor cousins to PI/Open (imho). One of the Unidata engineers sat in our offices many years ago and said that their versions of Basic and the query language were based directly on the Prime Information manuals. ( They did not have a copy of PI in the office while they were working to emulate it.) Yes, I'm not sure what, if anything, PI/Open had to to do with UniData, but Pr1me Information was the basis for the specification, with an interest in working more tightly with various industry "standards" of the day, including unix and SQL (but via OpenServer/OpenClient instead of ODBC--bad call on that). My understanding is that Unidata had a database, and was looking for an established market that they could enter with it; they chose the MV market. The original developer worked for a PI shop and learned from PI experts, at least one of whom is likely still on this list. Vmark (which predated Unidata by a number of years, I believe) It depends on what milestones are used. My recollection of the conversations is fuzzy now, but I attempted some amount of fuzzy accuracy in the start of each effort in the family tree poster, showing uniVerse starting (perhaps as a company, with products coming later, sorry I forget that right now), slightly before UniData. http://www.tincat-group.com/mv/familytree.html saw an opportunity to move the MV market from Reality and Primos to Unix, That opportunity included the fact that Microdata built it into their Reality product not to permit any disk drives other than those they made (and perhaps other attempts to permit customers to use only their hardware). This prompted some VARs to form a consortium out of which UniVerse came. which they correctly perceived as supplanting the existing proprietary minicomputers of the time. It took several years after Vmark released Universe for Prime to release their (excellent) Unix version of Prime-Information. Prime failed for familiar reasons: Their development and marketing structure was based on the high-margins of proprietary systems, and they were the target of a prolonged hostile takeover attempt, which dissuaded customers from updating their equipment and cost the company the farm. In retrospect, Unix had probably doomed them; I doubt that they could have shifted their structure fast enough to be successful with it. :-) I remember it well and have a soft spot in my heart for Pr1me. I'll add the tidbit that UniVerse did lose the lawsuit against them. This was based on the line from the Alfa UPIX guys to UniVerse and the fact that there was an individual working at either Pick Systems (I think) or a Pick customer site who "caught" one of the UPIX guys taking a full backup of the database/OS including source code. Since that time, UniVerse incorporated IN2, the French version, so they definitely do now have some Pick systems code in their product, where UniData was a clean room implementation, even if the specs were from PI. At least that is how I recall the conversations I have had to date about the history of these products. I'm happy to hear other stories and dates. Cheers! --dawn -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Tincat Group, Inc. tincat-group.com Take and give some delight today --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Okay, I have been sucked into this conversation: I would also suggest that if the UniData folks were satisfied with PI/PI Open/ UniVerse, they would not have gone to the trouble of creating UniData. The early versions of Unidata were poor cousins to PI/Open (imho). One of the Unidata engineers sat in our offices many years ago and said that their versions of Basic and the query language were based directly on the Prime Information manuals. ( They did not have a copy of PI in the office while they were working to emulate it.) My understanding is that Unidata had a database, and was looking for an established market that they could enter with it; they chose the MV market. Vmark (which predated Unidata by a number of years, I believe) saw an opportunity to move the MV market from Reality and Primos to Unix, which they correctly perceived as supplanting the existing proprietary minicomputers of the time. It took several years after Vmark released Universe for Prime to release their (excellent) Unix version of Prime-Information. Prime failed for familiar reasons: Their development and marketing structure was based on the high-margins of proprietary systems, and they were the target of a prolonged hostile takeover attempt, which dissuaded customers from updating their equipment and cost the company the farm. In retrospect, Unix had probably doomed them; I doubt that they could have shifted their structure fast enough to be successful with it. :-) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
It's my understanding that the people that started VMark came from Prime and thus had a Prime Information background. Pete Simmons, one of the principle architects of UniVerse, was a software engineer at Prime Computers. I am sure they came away from Prime with more that a few tricks in their bag. They basically took the Prime Information concept and enhanced it to create UniVerse. They really didn't have the chance or the necessity to start all over and, in your terms, do it right. I'm not trying to start the hated "which is better" argument, just the statement that starting with a blank sheet of paper, after some years of experience with Pick/PI/PI Open, maybe some Rev and Arev, etc, is more likely to come up with a similar, but quite different product. I would also suggest that if the UniData folks were satisfied with PI/PI Open/UniVerse, they would not have gone to the trouble of creating UniData. I know from my own experience in helping to write the "Prime" Information System, after 5-6 years of experience with Reality, created a product that was significantly different from Reality, but still very similar. Each iteration is a step up, hopefully. In my humble or sometime not so humble opinion. Tom Dodds -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson, Charles Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:48 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD I've always thought that there was a difference of philosophy from Day 1 that underlied the 2 organizations that manifests itself in the software: Vmark/UV: "All things to all men, that I might by all means sell to some." (If you'll allow me to misquote St. Paul.) UniData: "Do it right." They took the opportunity to recreate MV & PI "in their own image." (I'm continuing to bastardize the Bible.) There are pluses & minuses to each approach. I am NOT arguing which is better, just that some differences in the products can be explained in terms of the respective philosophies of the organizations. Examples: 1. Conversions from other MVs: UV: inherently easier. Baskin&Robbins 31 Flavours. UD: supplies conversion tools to help you, since it is more extensive. 2. UV tends to resolve ambiguities and go on, where UD tends to abort. That means you might get up and running with UV sooner, but UD aborts on bugs that need to be resolved. That can be characterized in terms of rigidity/flexibility. Those EACH have positive AND negative connotations, with respect to Software Quality Attributes, both inherent within UV & UD itself, and in your ability to build quality into your ap using each environment. Consider the implications on: Correctness Dependability Learnability Efficiency Portability Robustness What is important to you would influence your preference of UV or UD. By the way, I've worked in UV much more than UD, which is fine by me. But take that as circumstance of history, more than personal bias. Chuck Stevenson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
I've always thought that there was a difference of philosophy from Day 1 that underlied the 2 organizations that manifests itself in the software: Vmark/UV: "All things to all men, that I might by all means sell to some." (If you'll allow me to misquote St. Paul.) UniData: "Do it right." They took the opportunity to recreate MV & PI "in their own image." (I'm continuing to bastardize the Bible.) There are pluses & minuses to each approach. I am NOT arguing which is better, just that some differences in the products can be explained in terms of the respective philosophies of the organizations. Examples: 1. Conversions from other MVs: UV: inherently easier. Baskin&Robbins 31 Flavours. UD: supplies conversion tools to help you, since it is more extensive. 2. UV tends to resolve ambiguities and go on, where UD tends to abort. That means you might get up and running with UV sooner, but UD aborts on bugs that need to be resolved. That can be characterized in terms of rigidity/flexibility. Those EACH have positive AND negative connotations, with respect to Software Quality Attributes, both inherent within UV & UD itself, and in your ability to build quality into your ap using each environment. Consider the implications on: Correctness Dependability Learnability Efficiency Portability Robustness What is important to you would influence your preference of UV or UD. By the way, I've worked in UV much more than UD, which is fine by me. But take that as circumstance of history, more than personal bias. Chuck Stevenson --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
I second the motion! That was a motion, right? I'm SURE that was a motion! BobW -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson, Charles Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:16 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD I wonder if these answers could be turned into the start of a U2UG Knowledgebase entry. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
I wonder if these answers could be turned into the start of a U2UG Knowledgebase entry. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
"Many little extended syntax elements are not supported: for example the standard substring delimiter formats Variable[2,3] is supported but not Variable[3] and Variable[",",2,1]. Lots of other subtle differences. " Variable[3] will work on UD if the point is to bring back the rightmost 3 characters. Bruce M Neylon Health Care Management Group --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Sorry Bill but thats not correct. Both UV and UD were developed around the same time by two separate companies, UV by Vmark and UD by (amazingly enough) Unidata. Both were written in C. UV was introduced (IIRC) about a year before UD. Both were Unix based implementations of Prime Computers (Primos based) Prime Information product. Brutzman, Bill wrote: > The story that I remember is that UD was a major overhaul re-write of UV > using the C language. > > At the time, UD got the benefit of some C technology. From some point of > view, there has been some leap-frogging. > [SNIP] > -- Jeff Schasny - Denver, Co, USA jschasnyATgmailDotcom --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
The story that I remember is that UD was a major overhaul re-write of UV using the C language. At the time, UD got the benefit of some C technology. From some point of view, there has been some leap-frogging. At one time, Epicor was recommending UniData on Microsoft OS servers and Universe on Unix boxes. --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gabriel Green Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:28 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] Differences between UV and UD I feel a little dumb asking this but IBM's site isn't exactly informative with my question--- What are the principle differences between UV and UD anyway? Thanks, Gabe --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Adding to Brian Leach's and Bill Haskett's posts, and I fully support that we will not get into which is better for they are different due to their lineage as Charles stated. Structural Differences: High Availability - UniData's before and after image capabilities in the Recoverable File System (RFS) provide for a more robust solution for recoverability. U2 Lab Services is investigating if the before and after image logs can be used to build Change Data Capture for Data Warehousing Applications. UniVerse only has a post image log architecture. National Language Support - UniVerse can handle multi-byte languages and supports operating systems implementations of how to work with the native language of the individual. UniData can handle any language that can fit into the 256 bit structure of characters. Distributed Files - UniVerse has the ability to have distributed files, where you can cut a large file into pieces, called partfiles. When the partfiles are created, index(es) are stored with the partfiles. Stated another way, all of the indexes related to the partfile are contained with the partfile. Steve Stephen M. O'Neal U2 Lab Services Sales Specialist Information Management, IBM Software Group --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Bill Thanks for the re-posting! For all - PLEASE can we make sure we don't turn the answers to this into a 'which is better' contest... They're generally devisive and won't change anyone's mind. Brief list of major differences: - ECLTYPE vs FLAVOR UniData has two built-in ECL types. These broadly represent the two main syntax families for MV systems. In UniData you can switch between them at run time - which can be a benefit but can also cause confusion. UniVerse has an account flavour, which determines the syntax family used for an account. Individual commands can be marked to run in a different flavour, but it is a structural not a run-time change. - File Types UniVerse has broader support for different hashing types to optimise performance. UV and UDT both support dynamic files, but the internal mechanisms are different. UV and UDT both support directory files and can read/write OS level files, though earlier UDT platforms have problems with binary data. Both support index files, though UDT generally makes better use of these for querying. UniVerse supports SQL tables as an extension to the file model, adding security and constraints to the structure. UV and UDT both support triggers, though frankly both could make a better job of them. Both file systems today are extremely stable. - Basic Both support the same standard functions, though UniVerse BASIC is wider - more of a superset - and looser. Most of the innovation has come from UniVerse originally, but most of that has now fed into UniData so the two are a lot closer than in the past. Examples include the socket API, (finally) mixed case coding, SOAP functionality etc. You need to be more careful tuning UniData - it uses global memory blocks to improve efficiency but that can lead to memory leaks between processes. If pushed beyond their limits UV will crash where UDT will carry on and corrupt. Not sure which is better really. But that doesn't happen very often. - Dictionaries Both use the prime style D and I descriptors. UD also has 'V' types - similar to I-types. Only UV really supports the PICK style A and S types. Both support association phrases, but UD makes a separation between MV and SV'ed data - in fact UD has better support for subvalues generally. - Enquiry Here are some big differences. You need to understand the UDT.OPTIONS in UniData - these change the way UniData operates and interprets activities AT RUN TIME. So things like break point processing will change depending on the UDT.OPTIONS in force at that time. This gives more flexibility but also the possibility of someone leaving an UDT option ON that later stuffs up another routine. UniQuery is very much more literal than RetrieVe and won't allow you to mix and match syntax to the same extent. That's not a value judgement - it may or may not be a good thing depending on context! RetrieVe is bound directly into a SQL engine, and the two can be used interchangably to accomplish some very useful tasks, as well as handling set functions, subqueries and EVAL clauses. UniData has some very rudimentary SQL support. Both support XML generation. Neither one offers any real programmatic interaction like the jBASE JQL though. - Interfaces Here again, most of the middleware has started on UniVerse but since been integrated with UD. Both support UniObjects - the best middleware bar none. Both support ODBC equally badly, though in different ways. But you can get round some of the performance issues with UniVerse ODBC better than you can with UniData by poking into the engine using CALL and NATIVE statements. But neither is up to much in this arena. - Scalability and Robustness Both scale. Both are robust. - Which do I use? Both. I do all my development on UniVerse, but I've had more UniData clients. Regards Brian --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Gabriel: According to a previous posting by Brian Leach: **--** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:42 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] Difference between IBM Universe and IBM UniData That's a huge subject. The fundamental database handling is broadly the same, based on the same original model. You will find yourself at home there. Most of the differences are on the periphery and to do with emulations. You will find the same thing whenever you change platform: those useful little commands you use all the time just aren't there or don't work the same - but most do have equivalents. In terms of functional coverage (rather than implementation) the two databases are broadly equal - though they may take different routes to get there. Here are a few pointers covering some of the more standard areas. This is by no means exhaustive, but should give you some idea of the scope of the differences: 1. Account structure UniData has no equivalent to the UV.ACCOUNT file, or account flavors. Emulation is set at run time using a combination of the ECLTYPE (changes TCL commands), BASICTYPE (changes compiler) and a series of UDT.OPTIONS that change everything else. To exit an account use BYE (not OFF). LOGTO is supported using paths. 2. The editor is named AE (there is an ED, but that's different). It is fundamentally the same as the UniVerse ED editor. 3. Basic is generally in upper case only (no nice Open, Read, ReadNext etc): though there is now a compiler option to make keywords case insensitive (at last). Fundamental syntax is the same, though look out for the emulations of statements such as LOCATE and EXECUTE. Many little extended syntax elements are not supported: for example the standard substring delimiter formats Variable[2,3] is supported but not Variable[3] and Variable[",",2,1]. Lots of other subtle differences. The debugger is in some cases more powerful, but you need to explicitly enable it when you compile (see the help for BASIC). Which reminds me: the online help is generally better. Cataloging is different, and for local catalog you must supply the LOCAL keyword. Globally cataloged items do not have the prefixes (*,$,-). 4. Basic emulation can be forced using the command $BASICTYPE P|U, similar to $OPTIONS PICK etc. This must be the first line in the code, before the heading. 5. Sequential file handling is different: for OpenSeq etc look at the OSOPEN command. I'm just writing a simple article on this for the knowledge base. 6. File pointers and most VOC items are the same: UniData supports paragraphs, sentences, inline prompts etc. Dictionary items should come over, though some conversion codes are not supported, TRANS() is different, and you can't use dynamic array operators e.g. @RECORD<2> must be EXTRACT(@RECORD,2,0,0). AFAIR it doesn't support Remotes in the same way. 7. The query language is broadly the same, except where it isn't! In particular it is a lot more literal than RetrieVe, which will take a 'best guess' at what you want (and, to be honest, sometimes gets that wrong). Much of this can be customized using the UDT.OPTIONS, especially around break point handling. UniData is traditionally stronger at handling sub-values than UniVerse, though you need to define them in your dictionaries. UniQuery supports the overrides such as EVAL, FMT etc. in LIST and SORT commands. The CONV keyword is CNV (why, why, why - what was the point of making it different ). Some of the more obscure or combination conversion codes are not supported. It does have the ability to create delimited output, which is something I wish was in RetrieVe. 8. The file structure is logically the same though the internal organization is different and you don't have the range of hash types (not necessarily a bad thing as you can't go as badly wrong!). Dynamic files are supported, but are different. And naturally the syntax of CREATE.FILE is different - but then it is everywhere. To create a directory file use CREATE.FILE DIR filename. Secondary indices are supported though again the physical structure is different. Object code is not placed into .O files and there is the ability to include environment variables in file pointer paths - potentially very useful and makes up for the lack of an accounts file. 9. There is some SQL support, but it isn't as intimately coupled as in UniVerse. I've never used it in anger, and from what I hear it isn't up to much. 10. Spooler is different, but largely supports the same commands. If anything it is closer to that used by UniVerse on Windows. 11. UniData is excellent at handling unitary operations: standard business transactional applications. It does seems to squawk if pushed too hard: too large strings, too complex dictionaries etc. without appropriate tuning of dictionary sizes a
Re: [U2] Differences between UV and UD
Gabe, Don't feel dumb. The first thing to understand is that they started life as separate products from separate companies. VMark (UniVerse) and UniData (UniData) merged to become Ardent. Then Informix bought Ardent and then IBM bought Informix. So, historically, they are two vastly different code bases and each has it's own areas of efficiency. Under IBM's ownership they are getting similar features added in similar time frames, so for the newest features, the differences are pretty small. The further back you go, the more divergence you find. - Chuck "Half an Answer" Barouch Gabriel Green wrote: I feel a little dumb asking this but IBM's site isn't exactly informative with my question--- What are the principle differences between UV and UD anyway? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
