|
In theory (gotta have a copout!), I concur with your laudable goal of centralization & encapsulation. I see at least one risk, however. You mention the ability to enhance your functions. Say you've got a particular function used in hundreds of applications. You make an enhancement to it. Are you going to test those hundreds of applications that use it? If not, why not? How can you know that what you considered an enhancement does not actually introduce an error into one program that has a "special case"? Also, taken to the extreme, you *could* externalize all of the opcodes (except EVAL) into procedures. Have you done that? Well, jeez, that sounds rather snippy, doesn't it? (still only on my first coff of cuppee this morning, sorry) <g> OK, rephrase: Are there any other opcodes that you've externalized? Dan Bale IT - AS/400 Handleman Company 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 -------------------------- Original Message -------------------------- Dan, In my experience, it is better to centralize those types of functions in routines that you have control of. That way if xlate does not do what you want, or a newer, better version comes out from IBM, you are in a position to take advantage of it. I insist on this in all of our software, and some of this may sound extreme, but what you are doing is positioning yourself to build more reliable software that is easier to change and enhance. In this case it seems like you would classify the encapsulation of xlate as extreme, where I would rate it at good practice but not essential. David Morris >>> D.BALE@handleman.com 12/19/00 12:56PM >>> David, thanks for the reply! It seems to me that you can't get much more centralized than just using the XLATE opcode. What problems with the code page? Do not the letters A-Z & a-z all translate the same way regardless of code page? And if not, XLATE can't handle that but an API can? Scary thought. If you need a procedure to correct problems associated with code pages, don't you still have a problem with constants defined in the application? I know you were just using the code page as an example, but I'm hard pressed to think of another example where a straight "upper" or "lower" procedure would offer more flexibility over XLATE. It just seems to me that you're trying to fix a problem before one actually exists. Dan Bale IT - AS/400 Handleman Company 248-362-4400 Ext. 4952 +--- | 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 +---
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.