[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference orarep::nomahs::repository

Title:	Oracle CDD/Repositorynce
Notice:	Current versions are V7.0-01 and V6.1-03eld Test 3
Moderator:	8292::PJACOBN

Created:	Thu Jan 21 1993
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1094
Total number of notes:	4913

1050.0. "Cobol condition for" by CHSR38::ROHR (The Packers did it!) Mon Feb 17 1997 09:38

Hi, 

I have a customer who says that the following CDDL defined record
RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION will loose, due to the convert in CDO, the COBOL
condition for. 

Is this a known problem?

ALso, while testing this I stumble over another question. Why is the
RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION shown as field from CDO and not as record? 

Thanks,Regina

DEFINE RECORD RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION
DESCRIPTION
/* Funktionswerte der Module ADD_AUFTR_TO_DPOS und
REMOVE_AUFTR_FROM_DPOS */.
    ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION DATATYPE UNSIGNED NUMERIC
                    SIZE 1 DIGIT
                    CONDITION FOR COBOL IS UPDATE_S_N_DISPO
                        COBOL NAME IS     "UPDATE_S_N_DISPO"
                        VALUE 1
                    CONDITION FOR COBOL IS LEAVE_S_N_DISPO
                        COBOL NAME IS     "LEAVE_S_N_DISPO"
                        VALUE 2.
END RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION RECORD.

DEFINE RECORD BODI_ERR_MSG
DESCRIPTION
/* Externe Definitionen der Bodi Messages                            */.
    BODI_ERR_MSG STRUCTURE.

/* Meldungen des Typs SUCCESS                                        */
        BODI__START DATATYPE SIGNED LONGWORD
                    INITIAL_VALUE EXTERNAL "bodi__start".
        BODI_SUCCESS DATATYPE SIGNED LONGWORD
                    INITIAL_VALUE EXTERNAL "bodi_success".





DMU> list
   BODI_ERR_MSG;1 <CDD$RECORD>
   .
   .
   RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION;1 <CDD$RECORD>

CDO> dir

 Directory W2:[CDDPLUS] 

BODI_ERR_MSG(1)                                  RECORD
.
.

RATYPE_ADJ_DPOS_FUNCTION(1)                      FIELD

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1050.1		RPSTRY::MITCHNECK		`Tue Feb 18 1997 09:51`	9
	In DMU, there is no distinction between a record and a field. A DMU record that does not contain any structures is equivalent to a field in CDO. COBOL conditions in DMU are translated as separate computed by fields in CDO. Since a field is not translated into multiple fields at the directory level, COBOL conditions on standalone fields are not translated. If the field with the COBOL conditions was defined within a record, the COBOL conditions would have been translated and there would have been one extra field defined within the record for each COBOL condition.
1050.2		CHSR38::ROHR	The Packers did it!	`Tue Feb 18 1997 12:13`	5
	Thanks a bunch, that makes it clear to a Cobol/Cdd internals illiterate. /Regina