RE: OO / Procedural Productivity

["Nathan Andelin" <nandel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I may be missing something in your example, but I would
> argue that if you have a design as you mentioned then YOU
> ARE implementing OO type technology in your RPG domain

Fair enough.  ILE RPG supports encapsulation nicely, and programmers may
come up with their own techniques for loosely supporting inheritance and
polymorphism.

> ... are hypothetical examples for illustration but I think
> these common requirements may limit your utility.

The scenarios you pose wouldn't be limitations.  I understand your points,
but the example I shared demonstrated an application using a generic /copy
member designed only to support a database search and browse function.

I've been working with a skillful UI team that has come up with a fairly
robust design pattern for basic file maintenance, and the next step for me
is to come up with a generic back-end server model to support it.  

I anticipate having another /copy member supporting view, add, change, copy,
and delete operations, with additional record navigation, which could be
included in application modules.

I view this as building a framework, not a utility, per se.  There is
structure, but I don't see it limiting applications in any significant way.
Developers can extend modules to do whatever they need.

> ... how can you override a particular table assigning
> an intelligent Bus object that will override the default
> IO behavior?

This is a good question, suggesting the need for a runtime environment
supporting different users who might be performing different roles at any
given time.

Personally I'd use parameters and tables to define behavior and code the
application to implement it.  Different users may get different results, but
I wouldn't use business objects to override anything.

Nevertheless, every application would need to be able to identify the user
and the role they're currently performing.

Respectfully,

Nathan Andelin.