|
midrange.com
For programs compiled at V5R1 and greater, it doesn't matter if
observability is removed or not. Just another one of those drastic changes
that have occured in the last 25 years.
The program is being "re-translated" and not recompiled...this is probably
an effort in semantics and hair splitting, but the two are not the same.
At a high level what is happening is the same thing as Java (which came
around 15-20 years after the rochester guys figured it out :-) ). When you
compile Java source you get a "jar" file containing byte codes. The JVM
interprets the bytecodes. In OS400 when you compile a program you get a
program object (analogous to a Jar file) that contains source statements
(no equivalent in a jar file), program templates (analgous to Java
bytecodes), and object code ("pre-interpretted" using the Java analogy or
"translated" using OS400 terminology).
Prior to V5R1, when observability was removed, program templates were also
removed. After V5R1 only source code info is removed. It is no easier or
harder to reverse engineer program templates than it is to reverse engineer
the object code so not removing the program templates doesn't put your
intellectual property at any greater risk. Since the program templates
always exist after V5R1, these programs will always be retranslatable and
able to move to different hardware without having the source.
Patrick Botz
"Walden H.
Leverich"
<WaldenL@techsoft To
inc.com> "Midrange Systems Technical
Sent by: Discussion"
midrange-l-bounce <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
s@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc
Subject
11/30/2004 12:29 RE: Laymans explaination for single
PM level store?
Please respond to
Midrange Systems
Technical
Discussion
>in order to allow programs
>to run on different hardware without re-compiling.
I've always had a problem with this statement. Remove observability and
how far do you get on hardware changes? Aren't you really recompiling
the program under the covers. Granted, observability doesn't store the
actual RPG source code (or cobol, or MI, or...) but it does store the
program template from which the "real" program is created, or recreated,
no? The template is in effect the real source code, and the compilers
are simply translates from RPG, cobol, mi, etc. to the template.
Now, I do give Frank and the others great respect for knowing enough to
store the program template, and not rely on the "original" source code.
But is it really fair to say you're not recompiling the code?
-Walden
------------
Walden H Leverich III
President & CEO
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x11
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
--
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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
