Thanks to all.

I know that's not the "right way" to "internationalize". My goal is to build
a tool to help internationalization of "old" application. Those applications
that wheren't designed whith globalization in mind... and they are a lot. In
europe ther is a growing demand for translating tools as more and more
countries become part of the EC (European Community).

Some years ago we made a very efficient tool to gather strings from objects
into a "repository" to help human translators doing their job. (this tool
works in three steps : 1-strings extraction, 2-human translation, 3-building
of identical but translated objects)

We chose to work at object level because it is hll independant, we just have
to deal with MI template (we use QSCMATPG/QSCCRTPG) : ODV, OES ... It works
for CLP, RPG, COBOL, PLI, Basic, etc
That's the reason why we would like to do the same for ILE pgm.
I agree that's the "right" way should be to externalize strings into MSGF,
file ..., but lots of ILE programs are OPM converted program (and sometimes
from RPG II, not only RPG/400 !) and they are still with lots of
"translation eligible" strings in CTarray, constants, MOVEs ...
It's not always easy to change hundreds or thousands of programs when a
company opens an office in a foreign country, with shorts time-limits.

When I first saw "LITERAL POOL" into module objects I hoped ILE was designed
to change easily strings (API ...).

Now I'm looking for a way to change those strings during the module creation
phase. I remember the way we use to "switch" the CLP compiler into MI
compiler on S/38, and I'm sure it's possible.
Unless there is an "official way".

Hope I'm understandable, my english is still very poor :-(

Penasse Jean-Michel
EXPERIA Europe
www.experia.com



-----Message d'origine-----
De : mi400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mi400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]De la
part de Jon Paris
Envoye : samedi 10 avril 2004 20:54
A : mi400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc : Bruce Vining
Objet : [MI400] RE: Changing *module "LITERAL POOL"


 > I tried to change (sst) the "Literal pool" of a module but
 > when I try to use ........

Even if you re-create the checksum I'm not convinced you will like the
results.  I'm digging up distant memories here and perhaps Bruce Vining
would be good enough to provide a more definitive answer but .....

If memory serves, one of the differences between OPM and ILE programs is
that literals are pooled to some extent by the compilers and optimizer even
at the "no optimization" level, in ways that were not done with OPM.  Seems
to me that it could well be what appears to be a single constant may in fact
provide the storage for multiple constants.

If you want to internationalize, why not do it the "right" way - IBM thinks
the subject warrants an entire manual - if you haven't already done so I
suggest you take a look.

Jon Paris
Partner400
www.Partner400.com


_______________________________________________
This is the MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries (MI400) mailing list
To post a message email: MI400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mi400
or email: MI400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/mi400.



This thread ...

Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 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].