Re: General ILE question - *LR

I was following a thread based on an article you had written in 2003
CALL  or CALLB ?(http://tinyurl.com/3zjds) and agree that in some
instances it does not make sense or the time to convert and in most
instances the performance improvements are not noticeable.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't a bound call faster than a dynamic
call?  Wouldn't you still get that benefit even if calling to a main
line as opposed to a procedure?

We need to keep this broken up code as fast as possible.  We wanted to
make the calls to the new programs faster by using bound calls instead
of dynamic calls.

One of my colleagues remembers that at a COMMON conference, in the
intro to ILE class, they stated that one of the easiest benefits you
can get from ILE is to change CALL to CALLB on programs that are not
called by many programs but called extensively by the ones that do
allowing for a faster call and thus better efficiency. Is that an
incorrect assumption
 

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:27:49 -0600, Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Right, RPG IV sucks when it comes to file sharing between modules. It just
> really, really sucks.
> One way to work around this, and it is not by any means perfect, is to
> declare externally described data structures and then EXPORT/IMPORT the
> between the modules. These DS's would be EXTNAME(myfile) and the files in
> each module would then read into and from these data structure automatically
> (the subfield names would match those of the input/output fields). Using
> PREFIX and QUALIFIED DS's would be even better.
> -Bob
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Krish Thirumalai
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:53 AM
> To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> Subject: Re: General ILE question - *LR
> 
> We have a mammoth RGPLE program that is currently using a very
> subprocedures, but the main line portion of the code is still pretty
> big and is getting to be a maintenance nightmare.
> 
> We want to rewrite this program into several modules based on
> different functionality, so that we can do some concurrent development
> and make development/maintenance easier. We have figured out which
> subroutines are common and which are not.
> 
> Not sure what the easiest way to break this down since the program
> currently uses around 100 files and we want to share the ODP and be
> able to share data between these modules without having to chain back
> to the same files in each module if we break these down.
> 
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:37:30 -0600, Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I suppose the first question is why do you want to do this?
> > What can you possible gain from making a module that has the RPG logic
> cycle
> > in it a bound call?
> > Leave it a stand-alone program and dynamic call, you'll be better off.
> > The only time you use multiple modules is when the NOMAIN keyword is
> > specified on the header specification of the secondary modules.
> > If you haven't begun using subprocedures, don't move to multiple modules.
> > The "correct" order (in my view) is to begin using subprocedures first,
> then
> > move to using multiple modules.  The capability to call a module by name
> > using CALLB or a prototype is an anomaly due to the way RPG is structured
> > and should always be avoided.
> > -Bob Cozzi
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Krish Thirumalai
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:24 AM
> > To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> > Subject: General ILE question - *LR
> >
> > I have a general ILE question.  Say I am creating a module that is
> > bound by copy to the calling program.  The module has a mainline that
> > logic will flow through each time it is called.  Do I want to set
> > *INLR on each time when logic reaches the end of the mainline or
> > should I always just RETURN?  Does turning on *INLR really do anything
> > if the program is a module?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Krish
> > --
> > This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> > or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
> >
> > --
> > This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> > or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
> >
> >
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
> 
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
> 
>