If you never have more than 1 *MODULE per service program, you lose out on
the ability to have protected procedures.
Instead, you're left with only private or public.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
I've heard this recommendation a couple times in these threads. It seems
to go against one of the principle "benefits" of ILE - that one can
combine modules in different languages.
One question is, how much benefit IS that? I find at least one situation
to be beneficial, as described here -
We often have a front-end CL that sets up the environment, then calls an
RPG program to do the work.
I think it's a good idea to change the call to a CALLPRC, make the RPG
into a module, same with the CL, and link the 2 together - one program
object instead of two, for what it's worth.
Now that adds its own complexity to things, in my experience. Here is
where a change management app is helpful.
To add to the idea, the RPG module can have multiple procedures, and the
CL can call them as needed - instead of calling several separate
programs, again reducing the number of program objects.
Just an idea - that a CL driver program can make calls into a linked
module instead of separate programs.
On 2/7/2013 9:36 AM, Mark S Waterbury wrote:
Maintenance will be easier if you avoid binding *MODULEs into more than
one place (one *PGM or one *SRVPGM only).
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