RE: Re[2]: LVLCHK *NO

The argument for avoiding lvlchk(*no) can be summed up in one word: quality.
I've seen too many examples of code going into production that are accidents
waiting to happen.  Sure it may work fine but more often than not, the
resources required to clean up a mess could have been better utilized in
doing the job right in the first place.  With 200/300 programs related to a
file, change management software isn't a suggestion - it's a requirement,
especially if you're moving to ILE.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of Colin Williams
Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 12:37 PM
To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: LVLCHK *NO


What if that change involves 200/300 programs or even more?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: pcunnane@learningco.com [mailto:pcunnane@learningco.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 7:17 PM
>To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
>Subject: Re[2]: LVLCHK *NO
>
>
>     In my last job, which was in a software house, LVLCHK(*NO) was
>     strictly verboten.  If a file had to be changed - even to tack a
>     single field on the end - all relevant programs were
>tracked down and
>     recompiled.  All such programs then became part of the fix to be
>     delivered.
>
>     ____________
>     Paul Cunnane
>     The Learning Company
>
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: RE: LVLCHK *NO
>Author:  Colin Williams <Williamsc@technocrats.co.uk> at InterNet
>Date:    01-10-99 12:10 pm
>
>
>But what happens in the case where a programmer makes a change to a
>file, eg adding a field as part of an emergency fix,
>but does not recompile all the other programs that use it.
>
>I wasn't saying that its the way I would do things, just
>explaining why
>some packages may use it.
>I agree that it does cause problems.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kahn, David [JNJFR] [mailto:DKahn1@JNJFR.JNJ.com]
>>Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 10:48 AM
>>To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
>>Subject: RE: LVLCHK *NO
>>
>>
>>Colin,
>>
>>This use of LVLCHK(*NO) may be justifiable as a temporary
>>expedient in an
>>emergency fix. But throughout a package? No way on earth
>would I load a
>>thing like that on any system I was responsible for.
>+---
>| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
>| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
>| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
>RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
>david@midrange.com
>+---
>
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---