The reader who has some familiarity with the complexity of existing DHCP and CHCS applications will probably come to the end of this study in a pessimistic mood.

For all the desirability of transporting applications from one system to the other, there are great obstacles to doing this reliably in any automated way, given the subtle incompatibilities we have elucidated. Certainly any application that uses screen-oriented input (and all major CHCS applications are built around ScreenMan) would have to be carefully re-designed in the process of portation, because of the problems outlined in Section VII. Unless a large front-end effort were put into an automated "ScreenMan-to-ScreenMan" translation package, the most likely scenario is that a designer would have to re-build his data-entry screens by hand, in whichever "foreign" system he was targeting.

As for the many other, non-ScreenMan, inconsistencies we have listed, let us try to be as optimistic as possible as to their impact on portability. Surely one can say that the "simpler" an application, and the less hard coded MUMPS it involves, the more likely it could be easily moved from one system to the other. Just by scanning this study's Table of Contents, a developer or programmer can get an overview of which FileMan features he could consider to be "non-standard" from the standpoint of DHCP-CHCS exchangeability.

Finally, leaving aside portability of applications, let us end on a note of reconciliation, as promised in the Introduction. After all, the evolution of the two "FileMen" has not been completely divergent; there has been some convergence, too. One can find MUMPS data types, Variable-Pointers, and FileGrams in CHCS FileMan, even though all of these first appeared in DHCP FileMan, after 1986. Similarly, a few concepts original to CHCS have turned up subsequently in the VA repertoire; the ";NODUP" Print specifier, for example, that is available to DHCP users in Version 21, has been in CHCS FileMan for years. To the reader familiar with DHCP FileMan, this study has surely suggested one or two features of the CHCS system that could usefully be added to the VA development environment. Assuming, therefore, that it is DHCP FileMan that is the more open to enhancements fostering portability, suggestions are here offered as to which CHCS features could best be carried over to DHCP. Needless to say, we also assume that any such future work would be done in a manner consistent with U.S. Copyright law!

The CHCS enhancements suggested below have been selected because they meet three criteria:

  1. They are relatively easy (and backwards-compatible) to make in DHCP.
  2. They are judged to be useful for their own sake within DHCP.
  3. They all solve a problem that we have called "SERIOUS" in porting CHCS applications to DHCP.

``N Lookup syntax

The facility of "looking up an Entry that points to Entry #N" is explained in Section VIII. B. This addition to the capability of the general "^DIC" lookup utility within FileMan is helpful both to users and programmers, and it can be made with very little code change to this one routine. It has the added advantage, when used, of significantly speeding up a lookup into a "Pointer File", which is traditionally a very CPU-intensive FileMan exercise.

Group Cross-References

Group Cross-References, were also instituted in CHCS FileMan for performance reasons. Programmers use them when (as is frequently the case) the values of a "group" of Fields are tightly interrelated; it is more efficient to re-examine and re-validate the interrelated values once, after the user has changed several of them, rather than trying (with a Syntax Check or Consistency Check)) to check each new value separately against all the others, over and over. Also, since Group Cross-references are basic, structural parts of a File's Data Dictionary, they seem particularly worthy of DHCP emulation in some way.

List of values to Sort on

The CHCS user or programmer can ask to specify a list or a single value to Sort on, at any level of sorting, using the Specifiers ";2" or ";1". Use of this feature can often replace some tortuous hard code with a simple call to ^DIP, and it, too, can result in improved performance. Furthermore, users don't have to make awkward specifications like

Sort by: FIELD

Start with FIELD: FIRST// ABC


to get certain values that they want.

Uneditable Word-Processing Fields

This small enhancement is, admittedly, not high on most developers' wish lists. However, it is structural (part of the Data Dictionary), it is relatively easy to make, and it is desirable just from the standpoint of consistency. Why should Word-Processing fields be the only kind of data Fields that cannot be made Uneditable?

Nineteen (!) years have elapsed since the first FileMan code was written in the VA, and eleven years since CHCS FileMan was begun. There should be no doubt that the longevity and portability of FileMan, through its long evolution(s), is owing to its being based on the ANSI Standard MUMPS language. The unique database flexibility of MUMPS (through Globals), and its conduciveness to "self-constructed code" (through Indirection) are essential to the nature of FileMan, and to the applications that have been built around it. However hard it might be to reconcile the DHCP and CHCS FileMan work within MUMPS, it is worth urging, as a final thought, that porting either of these huge systems to a non-MUMPS environment would be a task many, many times more severe!