|
Is there any way to qualify a Procedure by Module name while calling the procedure with CALLP or CALLB
Not exactly. What I do is start my procedure names with the name of the module, so that I know there won't be any duplicates. For example, if I have a module related to customers, I might call it CUST. When I have a subprocedure in that module that retrieve the customer's address, I might call it
midrange.com
cust_getAddr()
A subprocedure for looking up a customer's balance due might be
cust_getBalDue()
and so on... because I always start my subprocedure names with the name
of the module, I won't ever have a duplicate, and it'll be very much like
qualifying the module name.
Say I have a procedure "ProC1" with the same name in two sub modules and I call the procedure "Proc1" in main module by CALLP or CALLB
First... don't use CALLB. There's no need for CALLB, please don't ever use it. Use a prototype instead. Thanks.
Second, you can (if you like) use the method I described above. A naming convention like that one helps when troubleshooting problems because it's easy to tell from error messages where to look for a subproedure. For example, if you have a subprocedure called "calcTax" how do you know which module it's in? However, if you name it "invoice_calcTax" and your convention is to always start with the module name, then you'll know that it's in the INVOICE module.
If you don't like that method, another way to solve the problem is to activate the service program and get a pointer to the exported subprocedure using an API. That way, you can provide the library name and object name of the service program you want to use. If you need to call more than one with the same subprocedure name, it's not a problem because you've specified the library and srvpgm name.
The APIs are called QleActBndPgm and QleGetExp... I think there's an example in the archives.
That won't help you for bind-by-copy, of course, only for bind-by-reference (i.e. calling routines in a service program)
In my opinion, the extra complexity of calling APIs, not to mention the performance impact of doing the binding dynamically at run time, makes this method a less-than-perfect solution. Using a proper naming convention is a better way to solve the problem. However, that option IS available if you need it.
Hope that helps...
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
