Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I have some programs written in Fujitsu COBOL (generated by a tool) that
run 
> in a Windows environment, read ISAM and write a RDB using embedded SQL
and 
> ODBC.
> <snip>

Caveat - other than being a name I haven't a clue what C-ISAMs are.

Pete : You *think* the compiler *might* be Microsoft rebadged MF COBOL :-

(a) Are you dealing with an end-user who only knows the bare bones, and 
whether amicably or for whatever other reason, has parted company with 
the contractors who wrote the application; or,

(b) They do have programmers

Both (a) and (b) above could deny the compiler doesn't have SQL - 
because it was never used. (See explanation below).

Unfortunately I chucked my copies of Microsoft COBOL Versions 4 and 5 
away ages ago, but I still have diskettes and manuals for Micro Focus 
(DOS) Version 3.1.

Can you establish which compiler they have :-

- does the term 'Programmer's Workbench' ring bells with their programmers
- I think when the application starts up it should contain a banner 
saying 'Microsoft COBOL Version .....'

Back to Micro Focus (DOS) Version 3.1. If you asked me, "Does it have 
SQL" my response would have been "No" - FALSE. It does. Just that I 
wasn't aware of it, because it's not whistles and bells like Net Express.

Briefly, this is what V 3.1 says about SQL :-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs can be created using SQL to access DBs that comply with IBM's 
SQL Precompiler Services Architecture

- IBM - IBM OS/2 Extended Edition DB Manager - refer to IBM documentation

- Microsoft SQL Server with Embedded SQL for COBOL Developers Kit - 
refer to Microsoft for documentation

The sup****t is dependent on various system directive (some 17), all of 
which begin "SQL".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether the ODBC drivers are obtained from IBM or MS I don't know. As 
there are just two, they *might* be included in the Version 3.1 package.

To provide increased compatibility M/F provides the following extensions 
- INCLUDE, DECLARE TABLE, UNDECLARED HOST VARIABLES, QUALIFIED HOST 
VARIABLES, HOST VARIABLE GROUPS AND INDICATOR ARRAYS, THE NOT OPERATOR 
(symbol); the symbol used is the top right corner of a box.

Back to Microsoft. I switched from RM/COBOL V 1.? with Radio Shack to a 
Compaq PC with Microsoft COBOL Version 3. DEFINITELY a Microsoft 
product, regardless of who may have written the compiler for them. The 
manuals were written in plain English - nothing like the gobbledy-gook 
from the Committee for Programming Language 22, Version 4.

I upgraded to MS Versions 4 and 5, which as Richard pointed out years 
ago were re-badged M/F. The LRMs were lifted from the text of PL22.4, 
well under one of its previous names. Essentially the only difference is 
that the "IDE" feature was Microsoft, viewing things through the 
Programmers Workbench and programs were compiled/linked using the MS 
Makefile feature. As V 4.0 was released MS said "Don't use Comp-5 to 
store data". Then when they issued V 5.0 that warning became apparent - 
the package included a glossy from an organisation called 'Micro 
Focus',(whom I had never heard of), where at a price you could switch 
from MS to MF using MF Version (DOS) 3.1.

Now it is a BIG ASSUMPTION - if MF 3.1 has SQL, I think it's a fair bet 
that MS Versions 4 and 5 also had that feature. If the user has the 
diskettes for the compiler, without actually re-installing, it should be 
possible, going through the Setup program, which allows you to select 
modules you want, to determine whether or not there is a module for SQL.

I don't think Net Express Open ESQL would help you. Granted it's a menu 
selection item in the N/E IDE, and although a separate sub-component it 
must be fairly integrated with N/E, particularly the compiler to be able 
to accept the SQL family of RESERVED WORDS. It is not a separate module, 
but part of the whole N/E package.

If you can establish the name/version of the compiler, then I would 
think that initially writing CSVs would be the way to go; then update a
DB.

Bill - can you add anything relative to how close MS Versions 4.0 and 
5.0 are to MF Version 3.?

Richard - we all know you are a pack-rat and don't throw anything away 
:-). Did you use MS V 4.0 or 5.0 and have you got the manuals/diskettes 
? Can you expand/clarify on what I have written ?

Pete, above is just a lot of background - hope it helps.

Jimmy Calgary AB