Pro*COBOL and CLOB Columns

All:

I have another interesting scenario.

I have a data item in a COBOL program that is declared as follows:

EXEC SQL BEGIN DECLARE SECTION END-EXEC.

01  LogBuffer          PIC  X(262146)  VARYING.

EXEC SQL END DECLARE SECTION.


The Pro*COBOL pre-compiler expands this to:

01  LogBuffer.
02  LogBuffer-LEN     PIC S9(4) COMP.
02  LogBuffer-ARR     PIC  X(262146).


As you can see - the exploded definition produced by Pro*COBOL is not
correct. I cannot seem to find a decent way around this - does anyone
have a good suggestion.

Standard Info:

COBOL: MF Server Express 4.0 SP1
Oracle: 9i
Pro*COBOL: 1.8 (don't ask why ...)
OS: HP-UX 11i


Thanks in advance,
Chris

That is right, because the length info of string is needed for
intercommunication between COBOL and SQL modules.

There are directions when using them:
From COBOL to SQL, writing both ,
From SQL to COBOL, reading LogBuffer-ARR,

Good luck,

Thomas Li
Corporola Inc.


"Chris" <ctaliercio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103294765.387986.37710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> All:
>
> I have another interesting scenario.
>
> I have a data item in a COBOL program that is declared as follows:
>
> EXEC SQL BEGIN DECLARE SECTION END-EXEC.
>
> 01  LogBuffer          PIC  X(262146)  VARYING.
>
> EXEC SQL END DECLARE SECTION.
>
>
> The Pro*COBOL pre-compiler expands this to:
>
> 01  LogBuffer.
> 02  LogBuffer-LEN     PIC S9(4) COMP.
> 02  LogBuffer-ARR     PIC  X(262146).
>
>
> As you can see - the exploded definition produced by Pro*COBOL is not
> correct. I cannot seem to find a decent way around this - does anyone
> have a good suggestion.
>
> Standard Info:
>
> COBOL: MF Server Express 4.0 SP1
> Oracle: 9i
> Pro*COBOL: 1.8 (don't ask why ...)
> OS: HP-UX 11i
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Chris
>

Thomas,

Thanks for the feedback, but the reson I am saying that the Pro*COBOL
exploded definition is wron is this: it only allows for a length of
9999. Clearly in this situation that maximum is insufficient.

The LogBuffer field is being inserted into a CLOB column, so there is
no reason to restrict the length of the string field here.
Thanks,
Chris

That is right, because the length info of string is needed for
intercommunication between COBOL and SQL modules.

There are directions when using them:
From COBOL to SQL, writing both ,
From SQL to COBOL, reading LogBuffer-ARR,

Good luck,

Thomas Li
Corporola Inc.


"Chris" <ctaliercio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103294765.387986.37710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> All:
>
> I have another interesting scenario.
>
> I have a data item in a COBOL program that is declared as follows:
>
> EXEC SQL BEGIN DECLARE SECTION END-EXEC.
>
> 01  LogBuffer          PIC  X(262146)  VARYING.
>
> EXEC SQL END DECLARE SECTION.
>
>
> The Pro*COBOL pre-compiler expands this to:
>
> 01  LogBuffer.
> 02  LogBuffer-LEN     PIC S9(4) COMP.
> 02  LogBuffer-ARR     PIC  X(262146).
>
>
> As you can see - the exploded definition produced by Pro*COBOL is not
> correct. I cannot seem to find a decent way around this - does anyone
> have a good suggestion.
>
> Standard Info:
>
> COBOL: MF Server Express 4.0 SP1
> Oracle: 9i
> Pro*COBOL: 1.8 (don't ask why ...)
> OS: HP-UX 11i
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Chris
>

Thomas,

Thanks for the feedback, but the reson I am saying that the Pro*COBOL
exploded definition is wron is this: it only allows for a length of
9999. Clearly in this situation that maximum is insufficient.

The LogBuffer field is being inserted into a CLOB column, so there is
no reason to restrict the length of the string field here.
Thanks,
Chris