Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command

    ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
    There are lots of shops that have built their own version of RUNSQL ocmmand over the years.
    The problem is that since IBM is late to the game they should not pick a command name that will most certainly interfere with years of development around user tools with the same name.
    I know they cannot know the name of every command that exists but surely they should have thought this name was "taken".
    Pardon me while I try and figure out what we are going to do about the name conflict before we load that DB group PTF.
    Last edited by V.Mack; 04-02-2012, 03:06 PM.

  • #2
    Conflict with existing commands

    ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
    RUNSQL seems like an undesirable choice of name that will clash with existing commands. We have a command of that name and I suspect that it won't be compatible everywhere we have used it. There may even have been a RUNSQL commercial product at one time (Bob Cozzi?).

    Maybe we need a "name that command" content.

    RUNSQLIM Run SQL Immediate
    RUNSQLI Run SQL Intereacite or Immediate

    Comment


    • #3
      Initially I agreed about the name but having calmed down...

      ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
      I initially had concerns about the name being the same as my command but, with hindsight, maybe I should have expected IBM to eventually get round to giving us the command and, based on their naming standards, RUNSQL was going to be an obvious choice.

      Maybe we should have called our command something that didn't match the obvious choice.

      My parameter for the SQL statement is called SQLSTM so where I have specified the parameter id in my CL programs they'll need changing. Thankfully, as it is the only parameter for my command, I don't normally specify it. I couldn't see it mentioned in the article but I hope that IBM made the SQL statement the first parameter.

      As they will allow 5000 characters, that will handle my current limit of 2500 characters so if I am lucky, I won't need to change many of my programs.

      Comment


      • #4
        ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
        (This may show up twice as my first attempt at responding seemed to hang...)

        I hear you, and IBM is aware of the concern over using the command name RUNSQL.

        On the flip side, anyone familiar with the system (and not having built their own RUNSQL in the past) might reasonably expect any IBM provided command with this function to be named RUNSQL, accessible through GO CMDRUN, etc. To introduce a name such as EXECSQL, DOSQL, RUNSQLIBM, RUNLATESQL, etc. would not be intuitive or obvious to the vast majority of users. Clearly the best solution would involve IBM having provided this function years ago.

        Right now I'm just glad I'm not still in the System Design Control Group (which is the first time I've ever said/thought that lol).

        Comment


        • #5
          ** This thread discusses the article: The CL Corner: Introducing the New Run SQL Command **
          Originally posted by TonyD View Post
          I couldn't see it mentioned in the article but I hope that IBM made the SQL statement the first parameter.
          It is the first parameter and can be specified positionally.

          Comment

          Working...
          X