Re: Adoption of RPG OA (Summary)

Larry

I'll expand on a couple items you address below.

Vern

On 3/18/2011 8:24 PM, Larry Ducie wrote:

<snip>
Programmers has to give op the "one programmer can do it all" paradigm,
it is simply not possible any longer.
</snip>

I agree with this 100%.

RPG OA doesn't go against this principle - in fact, it easily supports it. A handler is often going to be something another person writes. That other person could have the expertise to work with non-traditional devices.

<snip>
And I fully agree with Joe Pluta, why try to stick to OPM, when any else in
the world gets used to using plugins(classes) and subprocedure(metods)
I can frankly not see the difference in the overall method - and frankly
isn't it a
disservice to programmers that wants to move forward to keep them on
OP-codes
like EXFMT instead of learning them to call subprocedures(methods) that
basically
does the same, but is a lot more in tread of "modern programming".
</snip>

RPG OA is simply one tool. It doesn't replace evey other tool you have. Pick the most appropriate for the job. We bulit a test-case to geocode / reverse geocode an address via a simple chain. It worked beautifully. I see THAT kind of RPG OA usage as simple and elegant.

And, to respond to the idea of a "disservice" (not your statement) - no one is forcing anyone to use opcodes when a procedure call is called for. As for plugins, that is exactly what a handler is.

Oh, and OPM is not even in the picture - handlers are not even allowed in OPM source - only ILE.

<snip>