Re: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There are pros and cons to this approach...

Nice things about using one file for both languages:
   1) Is that it's just one place to search.
   2) You won't end up with the (potentially confusing) situation where two
        source members have the same name.
   3) Just one file to backup/synchronize, etc.

Nice things about using two files:
   1) Sometimes it's nice to be able to search for something language-specific.
       For example, if you want to know everywhere a file is updated, you
       might search for an F in column 6, followed by the filename and a
       U in column 15.   That would work for RPG/400.   Then you'd have to
       search for the U in col 17 of ILE RPG.  That's hard to do when the
       search program doesn't know which source members it's searching.

   2) Its easy to identify which programs have been converted from
       RPG/400 to ILE RPG just by seeing which file the member is in.

   3) All of the commands, etc, assume your file is called QRPGLESRC
       which may save someone some time.

Neither method seems to me to be significantly better than the other.
There are workarounds for all of the problems caused by one method or
another.


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Malchow, Grizzly wrote:

> I'm supposed to create a source file named QRPGSRC that will be hold all
> of source files, both RPG and RPGILE. I've always kept the 2 source
> members in seperate source files. I.E. QRPGSRC and QRPGLESRC. I know
> QRPGLESRC has a longer record length. I'm supposed to create a QRPGSRC
> with a record lenght of 112. Everywhere I've been before has always kept
> the sources seperate. I don't think it's necesarily a good idea. I need
> a good reason to explain why we should not do this, other than industry
> standards, the differences in the code etc.