Re: Processes after CRTSRVPGM

Simon,

You're technically correct, of course, but since I've needed to track down an elusive bug due to someone forgetting to change the named signature, I've decided to go back to letting the system assign the signature.

Since the compilation and last source change date can be retrieved from the object itself, I don't see a major advantage in putting the version in the signature.

-mark

At 2/13/08 04:01 PM, you wrote:

On 14/02/2008, at 6:57 AM, M. Lazarus wrote:

> That method tells the system that you are managing the
> signatures. This is almost the equivalent of setting LVLCHK(*NO) on
> your files. It gets rid of the error message, but also disables the
> error checking!

Only if you never change the signature. You can still get signature
protection if YOU specify a new signature. For example:

STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*CURRENT) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_310)
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_240)
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_230)
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_220)
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_210)
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_110)

This has the advantage of 'meaningful' signatures AND the so-called
level check.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists

http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \