On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, w 4038 <window4038@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
What good is ILE??
Before ILE, if you needed to call program B from program A, a simple CALL
statement did the job.
All you had to worry about was the library list and it was up to you to
pass parameters correctly.
Then IBM introduced ILE.
Now you can worry about, Activation Groups,Binding Directories, Binder
Language, subprocedures, service programs, Static Binding, Dynamic
Bind by Reference and some I can't recall right now.
I agree with the complaint about the complexity of ILE. The compiler
and OS should be able to abstract a lot of the complexity away. Should
not need procedure prototypes and binding source. Even binding
directories and the listing of service programs to bind to at create
time. Some sort of a system maintained directory of all the procedures
in all the service programs in a library could serve as the basis of a
way the system would find a procedure at run time.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact