× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Buck,

But what's the upside to manually managed sigs? Does it buy you much? If all you are looking for is an additional area to put version info, there are other places to do that without disabling what little protection it does afford.

Either way, I think you need to know what you're doing when building *SRVPGMs.

-mark


At 10/13/09 11:13 AM, you wrote:
M. Lazarus wrote:

> What I'm saying is that unless there is a really good reason to roll
> your own *and* a solid way to ensure that the signature gets changed
> when the exports change, let the system generate the unique value for you.

I understand what you're saying here, and what you're saying has merit.
On the other hand, in what, 10 years? I haven't come across much in the
way of protection with the system generated signatures. Here's why.

The overwhelming majority of my changes to a service program, far and
away, consist of adding a new exported procedure. Sure, I could use
EXPORT(*ALL) and let the system generate a new signature for me, but
that would require me to recompile every client program, despite
absolute 100% certainty that none of them have been affected by this
change.

I can think of only one case when the system generated signature would
have helped me, and that's when I accidentally deleted an export. In
the event, the client program rolled over and died because there was a
gross parameter mismatch.

I suppose that there's a window of horrible opportunity for a deleted
export to slip through (no signature violation because of my signature
naming) and the client program consumes the wrong procedure because the
parameters are 'close enough.' In that case, a signature violation
would alert me to the problem before the code executes.

I think the general objection is that the chance of encountering this
sort of snafu is much lower than the certainty of having to recompile
all my client programs when I know full well they don't need it.
--buck


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.