accessing multiple schemas -- 390 & cobol

[robert]

i may have been a bit glib in today's meeting. the issue of
whether one could access tables from multiple schemas in a
390 instance came up. i piped up with, "easy".

now, i was speaking from using AQT and dynamic queries. just
prepend the schema name, and let er rip. big deal. then my cobol
colleagues started with: plans, packages, collection ids.
my eyes began to glaze over.

so, is it just some straightforward configuration stuff, or is
cobol (batch, generally in this case) really that much more complicated?

they've been doing cobol/390 for a lot longer than i, and sounded
intimidated by it all.

curiously,
robert

[Mark]

gn*****@rcn.com (robert) wrote in message news:<da************************@posting.google.co m>...

i may have been a bit glib in today's meeting. the issue of
whether one could access tables from multiple schemas in a
390 instance came up. i piped up with, "easy".

now, i was speaking from using AQT and dynamic queries. just
prepend the schema name, and let er rip. big deal. then my cobol
colleagues started with: plans, packages, collection ids.
my eyes began to glaze over.

so, is it just some straightforward configuration stuff, or is
cobol (batch, generally in this case) really that much more complicated?

they've been doing cobol/390 for a lot longer than i, and sounded
intimidated by it all.

curiously,
robert

Most people don't like to hard code the schema (table qualifier) name
in the program so that they can bind the same program in different
schemas without changing the code. This allows one to have multiple
logical "environments" in one DB2 subsystem.