Re: [RE: LVLCHK *NO]

[Frank Kolmann <fkolmann@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To let you all know, I brought the first three responses to the >attention
of the I.T. Director, as it appeared that the responses were >not going to
change. I thought I was understanding the situation
> correctly, I just wanted some agreement from the technical community. 
> I'm afraid that when I presented him with my discovery he showed signs > of
"head buried in sand" syndrome. 
> "The point I really wanted to make is that by dismissing a solution or
> vendor,  based on one isolated aspect of their development standards, 
> you could be missing out  a system which is well-designed, costs less to
> maintain, and performs better than one of the alternatives !

I must admit that I have used LVLCHK(*NO), only when I am developing a
modification or testing a bug fix, but never in the production environment.
When moving the mod or fix to production , ALWAYS recompile all changed
objects and any programs that use the changed files. 

By not changing fields in PF, only ever adding fields after the last field in
a file helps to attain a degree of database independance, but given the 
nature of the AS400 if an vendor used LVLCHK(*NO) in all their files I would
seriously question their compentancy to have a 'well designed' system in the
first place.

> The most likely reason is laziness.  

I can only agree.

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at 
http://webmail.netscape.com.
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---