Re: binder language, binding directories, bind by copy/reference

Barbara,

This is actually the way we do it, we hardcode package name and release # in
the signatures of all our service programs. I'm still not quite sure whether
this is preferable over using LVLCHK(*NO); we have the possibility of
deliberately changing the signature, but I wonder if we'll ever do that. The
only reason I can think of is that at some point in time we will want to
clean up; removing obsolete procedures. In the mean time additions go to the
end of the list; changing parameter lists can be handled either by adding
optional parameters or creating new versions of procedures as described in
the ILE Concepts Guide.

Joep Beckeringh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Morris" <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: binder language, binding directories, bind by copy/reference


> Given that you have to keep the procedures in the same order in all the
> lists, why is the *CURRENT/*PRV method preferred over the hard-coded
> signature method?
>
> For example, this might be your entire binder source when using a
> hardcoded signature:
>
> signature('SRVPGMNAM')
>   procA
>   procB
>   procC
>   procB2
>
> This would be your entire binder source when using *CURRENT / *PRV
>
> signature(*current)
>   procA
>   procB
>   procC
>   procB2
>
> signature(*prv)
>   procA
>   procB
>   procC
>
> signature(*prv)
>   procA
>   procB
>
> I just don't see the attraction of the second one.