×
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 Wed, 3 Apr 2013, at 09:31:13, Jeff Crosby <jlcrosby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just stumbled onto something today. Apparently an UPDSRVPGM does not
update the file record format level ID within the service program object on
any files used.
I changed the format of a file (added a field) and recompiled all programs
using it. For the service program using this file I recompiled the module,
then did UPDSRVPGM. The service program record format ID does not match
the file record format ID.
This is also sadly true of UPGPGM and has been this way forever. It is, I suspect, why most (all?) change management tools tend to rebuild everything when a file layout changes rather than rebuild affected modules and using UPDxxx
I've always been surprised that CM vendors (among others) have not used their influence with IBM to get this changed. I guess the fact that it hasn't changed may be because of a problem with the underlying ILE architecture. e.g. The object does not know which module uses which file object and therefore can't delete obsolete references. If that were the case you'd think a single module PGM or SRVPGM would not exhibit this behaviour since the redundancy can be easily determined but ...
Jon Paris
www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
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.
midrange.com
