December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Dave wrote: "Doesn't the JDK for OS/400 provide SQL access? I could have sworn I read something to that effect in the "Java for RPG Programmers" book?!?" Yeah, JDBC is SQL. For all practical purposes, SQL is the only database access in Java globally. If you're referring to this statement: "By the way, does anybody have any idea why a Java program would only work against SQL Server or Oracle, but not DB2?" then that's my point... product developers end up having to choose how many variations of their SQL statements they're going to support by specifying specific databases the product will work with. None of the brave new world people want to admit that... they just want to convince you to write your "open" software on their platform... Ralph ralph@ee.net

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

It is not a question of "being loyal to the old stuff". Agreed, that OV/400 provides one of the worst Word Processing programs ever devised, it must be remembered that all of OV/400 directly interfaces with the rest of the AS/400. While most shops have shifted their calendar functions, and most of their WP functions to the desktop, there are still a hefty remainder of systems that use interface commands like MRGDOC. Until an automated functional equivalent is provided (Evergreen systems provides such an equivalent) by IBM, users require continued OV/400 support. BTW, although it is fairly easy to merge an MS Word document through ODBC with AS/400 data, it is not so easy to automate the process to occur in batch, or from existing 5250 programs. In the case of companies that convinced IBM to continue OV/400 support, there were literally tens of thousands of documents that used the MRGDOC command. So here again, it is not a question of loyalty, but one of functionality. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

I think IBM has provided another path via Lotus Notes/Domino for document merging. It's possible that it is an expensive path and the OV users don't want to commit to it. Either use ODBC and Word as you suggested and lose some automation (although you can accommodate with some ugly macros), use another package as you suggested, migrate to Lotus and pay to modernize, or roll your own. There was a lot of common sense functionality involved in the Model T also, but, rabid loyal customers did not keep Ford from improving and modernizing. Keeping a dusty dinasaur alive is not in the cards.

[B.Myrick]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Mike Kissinger wrote: "It's possible that it is an expensive path and the OV users don't want to commit to it." I will gear my conversation towards OV, but the context applies to all products and solutions. In this day and age I find it quite disturbing that solutions are guaged by their cost. I realise that there are budgetary issues to deal with (I myself struggle with them), but the expense of an product is quickly offset if it indeed increases productivity. The true expense to the company is the time it takes a person to perform their duties. On one hand, if OV does what they want, then stay with it. If however the product evolves or goes away, and you chose to remain with that now obsolete product, it is not necessarily the fault of the vendor. How many people are still using SpellBinder or WordPerfect on their CPM operating system? Probably not very many. I still have them, because I have kept my first real computer. A KayPro IV with dual 360k floppys and 10 meg hardrive. Has a 5 inch sceen and built in keyboard. Still works, but I dont do production work with it. Sometimes it just makes good business sense to move on. If it didn't we'd still be on the S/3 or mainframe. -bret

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

I think IBM has provided another path via Lotus Notes/Domino for document merging. It's possible that it is an expensive path and the OV users don't want to commit to it No, they haven't. IBM has admitted this, and that is the principle reason for the turnaround. I am in the process of moving one of my clients to DOMINO/Notes. I have been told that a document merge feature will be a part of Notes some time in the future, and it will be accessible from the native interface. As yet that has not happened. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Well then, common sense would dictate that your client should consider other solutions than what may or may not be coming from IBM. I guess if they are powerful enough and vocal enough, they can band together with other IBM customers in the same mind frame, and keep begging/threatening IBM to keep OV alive. It doesn't seem like a good business direction, but, it does shed some light on IBM's problem of moving into the 21st century when their 19th century stuff worked so good. I don't think this is a good argument or encouragement or example for other companies to use because they want to keep green screens and RPG alive. It didn't help S/36 or OS/2 customers much.

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Mike Kissinger wrote: "It doesn't seem like a good business direction, but, it does shed some light on IBM's problem of moving into the 21st century when their 19th century stuff worked so good. I don't think this is a good argument or encouragement or example for other companies to use because they want to keep green screens and RPG alive." Mike, I think IBM has done an excellent job, better than any other company period, of supporting existing products while creating new products as well as providing overlapping functionality between old and new. Your gripe against old technologies overlooks two important factors, functionality and cost effectiveness. These are what businesses look at. I realize IT likes to play with toys but companies actually are in business to make a profit, believe it or not. Companies that use OV to do business expect IBM to either continue to support OV or provide a conversion to comparable technology. IBM has always done that and will continue to do that, I'm sure. You are hyped on new technologies yet can't suggest a cost effective replacement for decades old proven working technology. When IBM finally delivers equivalent mail merge technology in Notes, everything will be cool. Until then, they need to continue shipping OV. This stuff from them about not wanting to "support" it any longer is nonsense. Just ship the stupid thing until they can figure out how to do all that "old" stuff in these new toys they want to sell. Ralph ralph@ee.net

[frankgw@adelphia.net]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Frank Whittemore asked: In what direction should we aim this guy? Dave said - IMO, the bullseye is directly determined by the corporate goals and objectives. What are your users' needs? What does your budget look like? And, most importantly, as Director, where do you see your company headed? Take all of this into account, and make the decision your own. --------------------------------------------------------- Where I see my company headed is, as you suggest, a key element in the decision process. However, where I see IBM headed is also a key element in the decision process. With that in mind I called the IBM SupportLine to get their perspective on the death of DDS for creating our external file descriptions. Here is what they had to say. First of all, they acknowledged what has previously reported earlier in this thread. For a refresher click here http://www.iseries.ibm.com/developer/bi/sql.html and here http://www.iseries.ibm.com/oper_nav/OpNavInfoCenter.htm They went on to suggest using Operations Navigator to create our new external file descriptions, but quickly added learning SQL would also be in our best interest. They went on to recommend imbedding SQL statements in our RPG programs and pointed out that SQL would have been shipped on our V4R4 CDs even though we aren't current SQL users. In other words, we already have SQL and can immediately install it on our AS/400 for a free 70 day trial period. Our site is on V4R4. Our programmer has already, on a small test file basis, gone in and established an externally described file using Operations Navigator. She reports that it was easy to do. Even pointed out to me that using Ops Nav using this approach provides for column (field) level security. Given what has been said thus far in this thread with its IBM references, it now makes sense to me to adopt a policy of continuing our learning adventure with Ops Nav and to follow up with giving SQL a try sometime after the first of the new year. Given all this strong evidence of IBM's desire to phase out the use of DDS for external file descriptions over time, it only makes sense to me to follow the IBM recommendations. -------------------------------------------------------- Dave - No matter what one's corporate goals may be, as an I.S. Manager I can only ignore what IBM is telling me their direction is for just so long. Otherwise I will be tying my employer, myself and other I.S. employees to obsolete code and obsolete programming methods. I certainly wouldn't want to be a S/36 or S/36 environment RPG II programmer trying to find a programming job because my employer, who couln't afford to get to native RPG IV and CL, finally went into bankruptcy. Survival of the fittest applies to both employers and employees.

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Frank wrote: "In other words, we already have SQL and can immediately install it on our AS/400 for a free 70 day trial period." Whoo, be still my heart... a free trial period... if you don't undertsand that IBM wants to sell you SQL and more CPU to run the thing, then you're exactly the kind of customer they want. As for job prospects, I wrote the entire internal networking processing software for an insurance company during a two year period using ANSI 89 SQL. Let's see... INSERT, SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, mmmmm, oh yeah CREATE TABLE.... well I won't need that, I've got Ops Nav now.... life is so simple now. Ralph ralph@ee.net

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

BTW, Frank, I use interactive SQL to look at data while programming. Every programmer should be able to type SQL at a command line. Every AS/400 should have SQL on it, I don't care what IBM bundles and what they charge for independently, that isn't the point. It's the overall value that counts. I am in no way suggesting to get by with say just an RPG compiler and Query without purchasing SQL. I interactively SQL mult-GB files with hundreds of millions of rows in a few seconds on an 840. Embed the SQL in programs, I don't care. With CPU speeds exceeding any stupidity that man can throw at it now, it doesn't matter any more. All other programming uses SQL, and their products sell. Even programs written in RPG can take hours to run, and it will always be satisfying for me to take 16 minutes out of a program run time like I did the other day. But then it's me and the machine. With SQL, it's you and the SQL optimizer. Have fun... Ralph ralph@ee.net

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

If you have that sort of autonomy, budget, and time..... Go for it. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Well I guess I could use your logic to agrue the case for my business model. I have a manual IBM typewriter. It does the job I need it for. It's very cost effective (been paid for long ago). It saves on electricity. It is very functional. It is durable. It is simple. IBM should start manufacturing replacement parts as well as provide technical support, just cause I ain't gonna buy into any goldanged, new-fangled, overhyped way of typin letters.

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Mike wrote: "It is very functional" It does not do mail merge from DB2 data. Sorry, wrong answer. Ralph

[Guest.Visitor]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

In my business environment, I don't need mail merge. I need, no, I require replacement parts and technical support for my IBM manual typewriter.

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Old typewriter parts are generally available from a real good stationery store. Just think of the fun one could have keeping up with typewriter technology.

[*]You would replace your manual typewriter with an electric typewriter.[*]You would replace your electric typewriter with an electronic typewriter.[*]You would replace your electronic typewriter with a stand alone Word Processor.[*]You would replace your stand alone word processor with a PC running Wordstar.[*]You would replace Wordstar with Multi-Mate.[*]You would replace Multi-Mate with Word Perfect.[*]You would replace Word Perfect with MS Word for DOS.[*]You would replace MS Word for DOS with MS Word 2.0 for Windows.[*]You would replace MS Word 2.0 for Windows with MS Word 6.0[*]You now upgrade to MS Office.[*]You now upgrade to MS Office Professional.[*]You now upgrade to MS Office Premium.[*]etc. etc. etc.[/list]Dave