Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:40:19 +1200
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%3vTj.194703$i_6.7323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some comments on Micro Focus compilers, SQL, Unix, et al
At the time that Micro Focus had 3 products for DOS-OS/2
- Compiler
- Toolset
- Workbench
Micro Focus sold 2 products for Unix
- Compiler
- Toolbox
Micro Focus sold (for Windows-OS/2) a SEPARATE "XDB" product which was
their first "SQL" product (and was definitely a DB2 emulator). Later
products included "built-in" SQL preprocessors (including PRO*COBOL at one
stage - as an option).
For as long as I can remember (since at least late 80's), Micro Focus has
supported the "preprocessor" directive on all platforms. For each of the
platforms that I remember, there were "add-on" SQL products. "Integrated"
SQL support (that was not an add-on product) was a "medium-late" addition
from Micro Focus (late '90s, I would guess).
As far as "rebadged" products go, "COBOL/2" (compiler only, and ASCII not
EBCDIC support) was a product available from either IBM or Micro Focus.
(It was "crippled" to NOT have EBCDIC support - or even '85 Standard
support when you bought the IBM version.). This was during the days when
Microsoft and IBM were still cooperating on OS/2. This product had
support for an "MS" dialect that did emulate a much earlier Microsoft
developed/sold COBOL product.
The actual Microsoft "rebadged" COBOL product - that worked with the
Microsoft pwd (???) was "mostly" equivalent to COBOL 3.x from Micro
Focus - but was (again) a crippled product that didn't do every thing that
the IBM or Micro Focus products did, but WAS integrated into the Microsoft
product line.
* * *
Bottom-Line (related to the ORIGINAL issues), I know of NO version of a
Micro Focus product (from the late '80s on) that did not "work with" SQL,
but up thru Server Express,(when talking about Unix) I would expect that
you would need to purchase the correct "add-on" SQL product and use the
Micro Focus "preprocessor" directive to get it to work on Unix.
Also, related to the original question, whether C-ISAM was used or not was
ALWAYS a "directive" question. For the Unix products, the "file-handler"
was always provided in a manner that could be changed by the user.
Although it is for a MUCH later Unix product, if you want to know about
selecting C-ISAM vs other file systems, check out:
http://supportline.microfocus.com/Documentation/books/sx50ws03/sx50indx.htm
then look at
"compiler directives"
and look for
"FILETYPE "
where value "1" is C-ISAM, but many other types are available.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
Thanks very much, Bill.
As usual, you are a mine of helpful information.
I think these folks just don't know too much about COBOL and compilers and
the "finer points" may be lost. Anyway, from recent posts here (including
yours) I have all the information I could want at this stage and I'm fairly
confident we can solve this.
Tahnks again,
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
.
- References:
- Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: Robert
- Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: Robert
- Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- From: William M. Klein
- Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- Prev by Date: Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- Next by Date: Re: COBOL Compiler for Windows
- Previous by thread: Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- Next by thread: Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|