Re: Use of DUMP in production programs, WAS: RPG enhancement suggesti on

Assuming that option 1 would prevent the DEBUG(*YES) keyword from extracting
non-referenced fields, it would save time and memory, with the added benefit of
omitting useless data from dumps and making them easier to browse.  This is the
way to go.

If, on the other hand, option 1 would still extract those fields, the only
benefit would be shortening the dump.

As I recall, the original objective of this thread was to avoid extracting those
fields.  Options 2 and 3 are apparently syntactic variants of the same solution,
which would achieve that objective.

Option 1 is better simply because, as I read it, it would reach the original
objective and also shorten the dump.  If I read it wrong, and it does not
prevent unwanted field extractions, option 2 or 3 is a correct solution.








boldt@ca.ibm.com on 06/23/99 09:47:31 AM

Please respond to RPG400-L@midrange.com
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  To:          RPG400-L@midrange.com                          
                                                              
  cc:          (bcc: Billy Andrews/Blumenthal)                
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  Subject      Re: Use of DUMP in production programs, WAS:   
  :            RPG enhancement      suggesti on               
                                                              









Buck wrote:
>Generally speaking, I'd rather that the end-user not see "white messages."
>I would much rather trap the error myself, produce a post-mortem dump and
>tell the user to call support for help.  My software looks much more
>professional telling the user to call support than if an "Invalid array
>index" error pops up.

How professional does your s/w look if the user has
to call support for help?  (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I do see your point, though.

A simple, one-liner for us would be to ignore the
DEBUG keyword when deciding whether or not to
extract an input field.  As a result, unreferenced
fields would not appear on the dump, even with
DEBUG(*YES) coded.  If a field is not used within
a program, do you really care about its value?

How about a quick vote on some alternatives:

1) Don't show unreferenced fields on dump.
2) Keyword DEBUG(*ALLOW) which would allow the
   DUMP opcode to run, but unreferenced fields
   wouldn't be extracted.
3) Opcode DUMP *FORCE to force a dump to occur
   even if DEBUG(*YES) is not coded.  (Again,
   unreferenced fields would not be extracted.)

I'll add the results of the vote to our proposed
enhancements list.

Cheers! Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *








* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *