Re: IBM's failure to provide AD tools

[jpcarr@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Bruce

Naw,  Too complicated.   Procedure pointers, ActivateBoundProgram,
GetExport.........
Just to achieve what it should have been in the first place in my opinion.
You are giving  me ways to work around your design model already
implemented.

My original point was about Dynamic binding being the pinnacle of a design
model from a
flexibility standpoint and that binding was a pragmatic rationalization of
speed/resources/and mirroring how it is done in other languages and
platforms.

IHO

It doesn't matter now.   As Hornsby would say  "That's the way it is" .
My first post is at the bottom to see my original thought.

Respectfully
John carr
----------------------------------------


I just happened to read this particular note, and so apologize if it
has already been pointed out, but you could avoid this by using the
Activate Bound Program (QleActBndPgm) and Get Export (QleGetExp) APIs
and then call those infrequently used functions via a procedure pointer.
This would avoid the startup cost associated with static binding.

Bruce

>
>The way it is now,  I get charged every time the main program is called
>even if I only logically use that function 1 in 100 or more times right?
>
>It seems like Opening a File.   It costs (say) 100 bucks,  It doesn't
>matter if I use USROPN or not,  it cost 100 bucks, either on the OPEN
>statement or at program startup.
>
>But at least with USROPN, I don't get charged if I never open it.
>