Re: Thoughts on MF COBOL, Unix, and RDBMS

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 
sup****ted the "preprocessor" directive on all platforms.  For each of the 
platforms that I remember, there were "add-on" SQL products.  "Integrated"
SQL 
sup****t (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 sup****t) was a product available from either IBM or Micro Focus. 
(It was 
"crippled" to NOT have EBCDIC sup****t - or even '85 Standard sup****t when
you 
bought the IBM version.).  This was during the days when Microsoft and IBM
were 
still cooperating on OS/2.  This product had sup****t 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://sup****tline.microfocus.com/Do***entation/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