Re: Scoop on v5r3 CL enhancements

dcl &cantusecmd *char 7 'CPFxxxx'
dcl &cantuselib *char 7 'CPFxxxx'
dcl &cantusefil *char 7 'CPFxxxx'

mycommand
   monmsg cpf0000
   rcvmsg msgid(&msgid) rmv(*yes)
   SELECT
      WHEN COND(&msgid *eq '       ') /* everything is cool */
      WHEN COND(&msgid *eq &cantusecmd) THEN(DO)
              /* oops security issue, alert the proper people */
           ENDDO
      WHEN COND(&msgid *eq &cantuselib ) THEN(DO)
              /* library issue */
           ENDDO
      WHEN COND(&msgid *eq &cantusefil ) THEN(DO)
              /* File issue */
           ENDDO
      OTHERWISE CMD(DO)
              /* now we have an opportunity for improvement */
           ENDDO
   ENDSELECT

Through the use of API's or the use of either QCAPCMD, QCMDEXC or
system().  Whichever one I favor at the time.  I like the flexibility of
QCAPCMD, but it takes a little longer to set up.  Since Barbara showed us
how to use RPG's PSDS to handle QCMDEXC better I've gotten rather fond of
that one again over system().

How would you code the following in CL?
callp(e) QCMDEXC(mycommand:cmdlen);
Select;
When exceptionid=*blanks;
  // everything is cool
When exceptionid=YouCannotUseThatCommand;
  // oops security issue, alert the proper people
When exceptionid=YouCannotAccessThatLibrary;
  // library issue
When exceptionid=YouCannotAccessThatFile;
  // File issue
Other;
  // now we have an opportunity for improvement
EndSl;

The following?
MYCOMMAND ...
MONMSG CPF###1 EXEC(DO)
...
ENDDO
MONMSG CPF###2 EXEC(DO)
...
And what happens if an intermediate command in the first MONMSG triggers a
different MONMSG condition?  Once you get a few lines of code in there it
get's tough to associate what triggered off what MONMSG.  I just find
using the API's encourage a more structured model.  And thus may encourage
you to trap for more error conditions.  Sort of like assuming an error on
a read was due to the fact that the record was not found.  When it could
be any number of conditions:  you forgot to open the file, a trigger
program aborted the read, etc.
And especially since most people using CL probably also use SEU it's not
that the code will be spaced nice, (read as "imbedded do loops").

Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com

Pat Barber <mboceanside@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces+rob=dekko.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/17/2004 05:51 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: Scoop on v5r3 CL enhancements

Just a small question..

How do you constuct complicated job streams with many programs ?
I assume you have job streams of some sort.

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I think these new CL enhancements are nice. However it may be too late.

> I've already gotten as much away from CL as possible.  I find the
> flexibility in RPG, more functionality with the API's, etc the way to
go.

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.