Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Richard (riplin_at_Azonic.co.nz)
Date: 01/03/04
- Next message: Habitant: "The King o' England's Sad Realm"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- In reply to: Pierra: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: RKRayhawk: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 3 Jan 2004 14:50:14 -0800
Pierra <pierra@sprynet.com> wrote
> Again, balancing was/is critical. Balancing is
> kind of hard to do in an interactive environment.
Time based balancing, such as is found in most accounting systems, has
many problems in interactive and/or real time environments.
One major issue is that transactions update master records and a
balance is required to a specific date and time but may need
adjustments to be entered.
This can be handled by complex systems procedures that keeps separate
figures for balance date and ongoing transactions. These usually
require batch processes to set and clear these.
Often, however, they lead to duplication of data by users taking
samples into a spread*** or PC database and manipulating as they
require. Their 'adjustments' may have to be replicated back into the
system and this can lead to errors or omissions, and of course these
may be completely invisible to the IT dept.
- Next message: Habitant: "The King o' England's Sad Realm"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- In reply to: Pierra: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: RKRayhawk: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]