Declaring at Group level is better or elementary ?

nayanishpatil · New User Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 14 Location: INDIA

Here is a small situation and I would like to know which one will work better and what's the advantage of using it that way.

A file is having only one field say :

REQUEST-ID PIC S9(09) COMP.

So, while declaring in the FILE SECTION, which of the ways below is preferred:

FD REQUEST-ID-FILE
RECORDING MODE IS F
LABEL RECORDS ARE STANDARD.

a)
01 REQUEST-ID-REC.
05 REQUEST-ID PIC S9(09) COMP.

OR

b)
01 05 REQUEST-ID PIC S9(09) COMP.

murmohk1 · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:29 pm

Nayanish,

Both has same effect.

ksk · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:32 pm

Hi,

Group variable is always alphanumeric. If you have some operations to do related to alphanumeric, first one is preferable.

CICS Guy · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:36 pm

agkshirsagar · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:06 pm

I would say the situation posted does not make any practical sence. I've never seen a file declared for just one variable. If there are many variables then we have to use group variables.
Rest I agree with all others that if only one variable is there then there is no advantage as such in either way..

nayanishpatil · New User Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 14 Location: INDIA

I think that the post requires opinions on which option would work better and advantages of the same.

There is not need to comment on what sense it makes to any individual for that matter. And for your kind information, this situation has been used in one of the programs which we are using for the client and had caused a samll variation in output.

So, it's better to address the query rather than other comments.

_____________________

kgumraj2 · New User Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 42 Location: Hyderabad

nayanishpatil,

agkshirsagar · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:56 pm

CICS Guy · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:01 pm

agkshirsagar · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:10 pm

nayanishpatil · New User Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 14 Location: INDIA

It's not about being angry nor I am angry.

I have just brought out to the fore that in case of any queries, such comments are not required. You just address the query and avoid any such comments.

Let me elaborate the "small variation in output".

Assumption:1)The input file is having 16 records.
2)The program is having an SQL query which updates record
matching to the record from the input file.
3) 01 REQUEST-ID PIC S9(09) COMP. is used to declare.

When a JCL prepared for the pgm is run, it finds all the 16 records and even goes fine inside the query. But once all the records are read and the file approaches it's end, it reads a non-existing 17th records and while going in the updation query, the same is not present in the table and hence abends.

But when the same pgm with a group level declaration is used works fine.

kgumraj2 · New User Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 42 Location: Hyderabad

kgumraj2 · New User Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 42 Location: Hyderabad

Sorry to not mention,
This is in the FD level only;
Thanks

agkshirsagar · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:22 pm

nayanishpatil · New User Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 14 Location: INDIA

It's not about being angry nor I am angry.

I have just brought out to the fore that in case of any queries, such comments are not required. You just address the query and avoid any such comments.

Let me elaborate the "small variation in output".

Assumption:1)The input file is having 16 records.
2)The program is having an SQL query which updates record
matching to the record from the input file.
3) 01 REQUEST-ID PIC S9(09) COMP. is used to declare.

When a JCL prepared for the pgm is run, it finds all the 16 records and even goes fine inside the query. But once all the records are read and the file approaches it's end, it reads a non-existing 17th records and while going in the updation query, the same is not present in the table and hence abends.

But when the same pgm with a group level declaration is used works fine.

And in both the cases there are no compilation errors. Its an error free code.

William Thompson · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:35 pm

Sounds more like a programming bug to me.....