RE: A design philosophy question

I guess it isn't so much a question of flexibilty as it is a preference.  I
would prefer to write the modules in a service program rather than call them
staticly.  The reason for this preference is that I can to reuse the pieces
of the service program(s) for other purposes.  I find the task of writing a
new program easier and more maintenance free when I can assemble them using
pieces of existing logic rather than calling programs statically.  Right now
I work with a system that was developed with static call modularity in mind.
In a short amount of time the once streamlined logic throughout the system
has become cumbersome.  Although the fault may lie with programmer error
rather than a design flaw,  I do believe it may have been averted if similar
logic that had been copied throught the system would have been put into
service programs and re-used.  My opinion is that the question of a static
call vs. service programs goes to the level of sub-procedures vs.
subroutines rather than program to program.

-----Original Message-----
From: Buck Calabro [mailto:Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:52 AM
To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
Subject: RE: A design philosophy question

>>1. Individual programs
>>2. Modules bound by copy
>>3. Modules in service programs
>
>I think option 3 is the way to approach it.
>If MVC architecture is used to assemble the
>"view" components with the calling RPG ("model")
>this makes the program and DDS more flexible.

How are service programs more flexible than dynamic calls in this instance?
  --buck
_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.