×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 28/05/2010, at 9:14 PM, David FOXWELL wrote:
My French won't go that far - a quick google translate :
Dites à votre saucisse de gestion que j'ai dit qu'ils étaient un
groupe de numptys et il est temps qu'ils obtenu avec le programme.
"Management sausage" doesn't seem right somehow. Are they confusing
Australian weenies with an American synonyme?
While the translator may indeed be confusing the **word** with a local
vernacular **meaning**, "management sausage" seems a remarkably
appropriate translation! I'm going to start using that phrase from now
on; Don't be a management sausage; you're such a management sausage;
pay no attention to him, he's just a management sausage; etc.
So, if a file had 100 fields, you'd probably just do getters for the
ones you need and let the next person add a getter when it was
needed? Management doesn't see the advantage of the getters for each
zone and I'm trying to think of the reason.
No, you'd write a generic program that can build the getters and
setters for a given file. Easy to generate the necessary code template
based of file field names and data types. For some getters/setters you
may need to add additional code (e.g., validation) but the bulk of it
would be done by the generator and not need to be touched.
One good reason is that the getter/setter names are self-documenting
and may improve the readability of the code.
Now even I am shocked. So the DS's would be hard coded? The
procedure in the i/o module could not read directly into the DS.
That and a level request seems to be a lot of unnecessary complexity
to me.
The primary purpose of using an I/O module is to remove the tight
coupling between program and file. If you simply read into a matching
data structures and return that to your caller then you have done
nothing to reduce the level of coupling. Change the file, change the
DS, recompile all then consumers. You gained nothing. Since basic
physics says you can't get something for nothing the "cost" of de-
coupling all but one program from a given file is some increase in
"complexity" but really, the complexity is isolated to one program
(the I/O server module) and isn't that complex anyway.
Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists
http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------
midrange.com
