This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C113BE.3BEA4F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Nope - it's the actual number of elements within the record structure that has changed. A recompilation is pretty well unavoidable, (as in I haven't ever found a way around it). If you find some other approach that works however, make sure you publicize it. There are a lot of us RMS-types who'd appreciate it! Curtis Aikens Information Technologies Dairyland (780) 486-8442 -----Original Message----- From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:28 PM To: Edis, Bob; powerhouse Subject: Re: Impacts of modifying record structures The temp item has not changed. Calling screen: TEMP T-NEW-ENTRY CHAR*1 RESET AT STARTUP INIT "N" Called screen: TEMP T-NEW-ENTRY CHAR*1 I should mention that I did NOT execute the UNLOAD/CREATE/RELOAD procedure on the affected record. I don't usually do this unless the index structure or record length has changed. p > From: "Edis, Bob" <bob.edis@fleetpride.com> > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:03:01 -0500 > To: "'powerh-l@list.swau.edu'" <powerh-l@lists.swau.edu> > Subject: RE: Impacts of modifying record structures > > Has the definition for T-NEW-ENTRY changed? How is it declared on each > screen? > > I assume the receiving screen was always a MENU screen. > > I tend to agree with a previous poster; you will have to recompile the > screens that reference this record. > > Blue > > -----Original Message----- > From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:54 PM > To: Edis, Bob; 'powerh-l@list.swau.edu' > Subject: Re: Impacts of modifying record structures > > > Sure. Here's a typical example: > > > RUN SCREEN HRS_EXE:HRNK096.QKC MODE SAME PASSING EMPLOYEE-PER, T-NEW-ENTRY > > SCREEN HRS_EXE:HRNK096.QKC MENU RECEIVING EMPLOYEE-PER, T-NEW-ENTRY & > MESSAGE ON 24 > > I tried the "substructure" approach on the record statement rather than > shortening the filler field, but I am still getting the same error message. > > Here are the items in question after substructuring. The country code field > is the new item. CLIENT-ELEMENT is the filler item: > > CLIENT-ELEMENT CHARACTER 40 295 > .FOREIGN-COUNTRY-CODE CHARACTER 2 295 > DATE-LONGEVITY-LAST INTEGER SIGNED 4 335 > > The file is indexed sequential RMS. > > Is there some way I could do it with a REDEF? I am playing around with it, > but it increases the record length... > > tx > > p >> From: "Edis, Bob" <bob.edis@fleetpride.com> >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:54:00 -0500 >> To: "'powerh-l@list.swau.edu'" <powerh-l@lists.swau.edu> >> Subject: RE: Impacts of modifying record structures >> >> Pablo >> >> Can we see the subscreen/run screen statements from the calling screen and >> the screen statement from the receiving screen please? >> >> Regards, >> Blue >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net] >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:42 PM >> To: powerhouse >> Subject: Impacts of modifying record structures >> >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> Ok, I have a record structure called EMPLOYEE-PER that is used in about a >> zillion programs. The record structure includes "filler" fields for > future >> expansion. This is handy to avoid having to recompile everything when >> adding a new item to the record structure. Simply take some bytes from > the >> filler and use them for the new item. Therefore, the record length stays >> the same. I'm sure most of you have done something similar. >> >> Well, I did this, but I'm getting the error: >> >> *d* The screen linkage parameters don't agree with local definitions. >> >> when I call a subscreen passing the EMPLOYEE-PER record. This is >> disappointing as it looks like I will have to recompile every subscreen > that >> receives this record structure as a parameter (a very significant task). > I >> don't remember this happening before when using this old tried and true >> technique for avoiding recompiles. Is this something new? >> >> Does anybody have any suggestions for modifying my record structure > without >> having to recompile? All I am trying to do is add a new 2 character field >> to the record. The "filler" field that I have shortened is not a > parameter >> being passed to the subscreens. >> >> VMS 7.1 >> PH 7.10 >> RMS files >> >> thanks! >> >> p >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu >> Subscribe: "subscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu >> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message body to >> powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu >> http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l >> This list is closed, thus to post to the list you must be a subscriber. >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu >> Subscribe: "subscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu >> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message body to > powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu >> http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l >> This list is closed, thus to post to the list you must be a subscriber. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu > Subscribe: "subscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu > Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu > http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l > This list is closed, thus to post to the list you must be a subscriber. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu Subscribe: "subscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l This list is closed, thus to post to the list you must be a subscriber. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C113BE.3BEA4F50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">RE: Impacts of modifying record structures Nope - it's the actual number of elements within the = record structure that has changed. A recompilation is = pretty well unavoidable, (as in I haven't ever found a way around = it).
If you find some other approach that works however, = make sure you publicize it. There are a lot of us RMS-types who'd = appreciate it!
Curtis Aikens
Information Technologies
Dairyland
(780) 486-8442-----Original Message-----
From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net] =
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:28 = PM
To: Edis, Bob; = powerhouse
Subject: = Re: Impacts of modifying record structuresThe temp item has not changed.
Calling screen:
TEMP = T-NEW-ENTRY = CHAR*1 RESET AT STARTUP INIT = "N"
Called screen:
TEMP T-NEW-ENTRY = CHAR*1
I should mention that I did NOT execute the = UNLOAD/CREATE/RELOAD procedure
on the affected record. I don't usually do = this unless the index structure
or record length has changed.p
> From: "Edis, Bob" = <bob.edis@fleetpride.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:03:01 -0500
> To: "'powerh-l@list.swau.edu'" = <powerh-l@lists.swau.edu>
> Subject: RE: Impacts of modifying record = structures
>
> Has the definition for T-NEW-ENTRY = changed? How is it declared on each
> screen?
>
> I assume the receiving screen was always a MENU = screen.
>
> I tend to agree with a previous poster; you = will have to recompile the
> screens that reference this record.
>
> Blue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:54 PM
> To: Edis, Bob; 'powerh-l@list.swau.edu'
> Subject: Re: Impacts of modifying record = structures
>
>
> Sure. Here's a typical example:
>
>
> RUN SCREEN HRS_EXE:HRNK096.QKC MODE SAME = PASSING EMPLOYEE-PER, T-NEW-ENTRY
>
> SCREEN HRS_EXE:HRNK096.QKC MENU RECEIVING = EMPLOYEE-PER, T-NEW-ENTRY &
> MESSAGE ON 24
>
> I tried the "substructure" approach = on the record statement rather than
> shortening the filler field, but I am still = getting the same error message.
>
> Here are the items in question after = substructuring. The country code field
> is the new item. CLIENT-ELEMENT is the = filler item:
>
> = CLIENT-ELEMENT &nbs= p; &nbs= p; CHARACTER = 40 295
> = .FOREIGN-COUNTRY-CODE &n= bsp; = CHARACTER = 2 295
> = DATE-LONGEVITY-LAST = ; INTEGER = SIGNED = 4 335
>
> The file is indexed sequential RMS.
>
> Is there some way I could do it with a = REDEF? I am playing around with it,
> but it increases the record length...
>
> tx
>
> p
>> From: "Edis, Bob" = <bob.edis@fleetpride.com>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:54:00 = -0500
>> To: "'powerh-l@list.swau.edu'" = <powerh-l@lists.swau.edu>
>> Subject: RE: Impacts of modifying record = structures
>>
>> Pablo
>>
>> Can we see the subscreen/run screen = statements from the calling screen and
>> the screen statement from the receiving = screen please?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Blue
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pablo grim [mailto:pablow666@gorge.net]
>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:42 PM
>> To: powerhouse
>> Subject: Impacts of modifying record = structures
>>
>>
>> Howdy folks,
>>
>> Ok, I have a record structure called = EMPLOYEE-PER that is used in about a
>> zillion programs. The record = structure includes "filler" fields for
> future
>> expansion. This is handy to avoid = having to recompile everything when
>> adding a new item to the record = structure. Simply take some bytes from
> the
>> filler and use them for the new item. = Therefore, the record length stays
>> the same. I'm sure most of you have = done something similar.
>>
>> Well, I did this, but I'm getting the = error:
>>
>> *d* The screen linkage parameters don't = agree with local definitions.
>>
>> when I call a subscreen passing the = EMPLOYEE-PER record. This is
>> disappointing as it looks like I will have = to recompile every subscreen
> that
>> receives this record structure as a = parameter (a very significant task).
> I
>> don't remember this happening before when = using this old tried and true
>> technique for avoiding recompiles. Is = this something new?
>>
>> Does anybody have any suggestions for = modifying my record structure
> without
>> having to recompile? All I am trying = to do is add a new 2 character field
>> to the record. The "filler" = field that I have shortened is not a
> parameter
>> being passed to the subscreens.
>>
>> VMS 7.1
>> PH 7.10
>> RMS files
>>
>> thanks!
>>
>> p
>>
>> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D
>> Mailing list: = powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
>> Subscribe: "subscribe" in message = body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
>> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in = message body to
>> powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
>> http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l
>> This list is closed, thus to post to the = list you must be a subscriber.
>>
>> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D
>> Mailing list: = powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
>> Subscribe: "subscribe" in message = body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
>> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in = message body to
> powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
>> http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l
>> This list is closed, thus to post to the = list you must be a subscriber.
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
> Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
> Subscribe: "subscribe" in message = body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message = body to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
> http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l
> This list is closed, thus to post to the list = you must be a subscriber.
=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D = =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
------_=_NextPart_001_01C113BE.3BEA4F50--
Mailing list: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
Subscribe: "subscribe" in message body to = powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe" in message body = to powerh-l-request@lists.swau.edu
http://lists.swau.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerh-l
This list is closed, thus to post to the list you = must be a subscriber.