RE: Module source naming schemes

["Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)" <ALBartell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>But wait -- there's more!   A service program can have more than one
>signature for backwards compatability, AND you can control what the
>signature is.  This allows you, with a little planning, to make sure that
>you don't have to re-bind the programs that call your SRVPGM until you
>need to use a new procedure.

I am wondering.  Has anyone had problems with creating multiple PGMEXP's
within a binder source?  I am looking at it from the direction of
continually adding SP's to a module and constantly having to change the
binder source.  If the PGMEXP's get to great in numbers is it hectic trying
to maintain?  Is there a utility out there to tell you if a *PRV version of
the PGMEXP is no longer in use so you could wax it and make the source more
maintainable?

How do other languages like C/C++, and Java handle this stuff since they
seem to be more on the basis of OO programming?
Example below:

STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*CURRENT)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_OPEN)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_READ)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_READP)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_CLOSE)
ENDPGMEXP
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_OPEN)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_READ)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_CLOSE)
ENDPGMEXP
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_OPEN)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_READ)
ENDPGMEXP
STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV)
     EXPORT SYMBOL(RNF_OPEN)
ENDPGMEXP


Aaron Bartell
pgmr
+---
| 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
+---