2 Canadian cents. I use the local dictionaries to build a datastore I use to see if there are any relationships between Table A and Table B. Invaluable to learn table relationships and the use of primary and foreign keys on new sites. Also shows any interaction with interim tables while building the Foreign Key. Saves time setting up redundant translates, code reviews, debugging, etc.
It sure would be nice to have a 'Best Utility' competition in the Universe world and present something at the International Spectrum conference. Maybe there is but I haven't heard about it. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 1:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U2 Users Digest V1 #175 U2 Users Digest Sunday, August 8 2004 Volume 01 : Number 175 In this issue: Re: [U2] Adding D-Descriptors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 13:33:57 -0400 From: "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: 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 (waaaay 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/ ------------------------------ End of U2 Users Digest V1 #175 ****************************** ------------ u2-users-digest 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/
