RE: ILE philosophy

At 10:26 AM 9/19/02, Buck Calabro wrote:

>Is the service program approach really
>the bees knees?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Boy, you really sound convincing. I gave it a try and I'm still not sure
about this.  Here is where I came up short:

In my mind, I imagine ILE to be a four tiered hierarchy:

Binding Directory (one or many) has
        Service Program (one or many) has
                Module (one or many) has
                        Function (one or many)

I realize that more arrangements can be made than this, but this seems
principally how I can see it working.

Right now, my biggest issue with the whole deal comes down to managing the
service programs.  Say I create a new module, I've got to recreate the
service program that it should reside in.  I've got to update my binder
language source first - by hand it would appear.  Then CRTSRVPGM -- and I
have to retype all of it's constituent module names.  If there are 100
modules, yuck.  I'm sure to forget one.

If I just update a module, I have to UPDSRVPGM - provided I didn't change
the interface to any routines.  I don't see a great way to automate the
process -- it would be easy to break.

A 'make' utility might go a long way towards making the system work
efficiently.  Although I don't think a regular make utility (as I'm used to
seeing them on other platforms) could effectively deal with updating the
binder language source -- at least out of the box.

Are you manually managing the binder language source?  What, if any, tools
are there to help?

Thank you.

Regards,
Rich