Re: LVLCHK(*NO)

[steven.ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Michael

I have no problem with LVLCHK(*NO) - in fact, I use it quite often.
However, you should only implement it as a short term factor, not as a
permanent solution.

I only use it is as follows.

If I have an important application that is used nearly continuously, and I
have a significant change involving quite a few programs, I can find it
difficult to get people off (and keep them off) for long enough to a)
change the data base and b) recompile all the programs.

IF the fields are ALPHA, and IF they are at the end of the file, and IF
they don't affect the key, then I take the following steps

1.  CHGLF xxxxx LVLCHK(*NO) on all  logicals attached to the Physical
2.  CHGPF xxxxx SRCFILE(xxxxx/xxxx) LVLCHK(*NO) on the changed Physical.
3.  CRTRPGPGM xxxxx  on all the programs that use either the logical or
physical, regardless of whether they have been affected by the change
4.  CHGPF xxxxx LVLCHK(*YES)
5.  CHGLF xxxxx LVLCHK(*YES) on all logicals attached to the physical

This allows me to perform a 'hot change'.  Of course, it's not always
possible to do a hot change - it depends on the specific change and the
application involved.

If you use LVLCHK(*NO) as an excuse not to recompile all programs that use
the file or its logicals, you are just asking for trouble.  Because it's a
sure thing that at some stage later you'll change the LVLCHK to *YES for
some reason, and half your system will come down in a screaming heap.




                    J Michael Smith
                    <JMichael.Smith@a        To:     "RPG400-L (E-mail)"
                    rch.com>                 <RPG400-L@midrange.com>, "RPGIV 
(E-mail)"
                    Sent by:                 <RPGIV@yahoogroups.com>
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi        cc:
                    drange.com               Subject:     LVLCHK(*NO)


                    23/08/02 06:21
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l





After reviewing the archives, I find that most would not recommend using
LVLCHK(*NO).

With that as a given, we are considering adding two alpha(3 position
fields)
to a master file.  There are no changes of any kind to the previous
"fields"
and the new fields will be added a the end of the DDS.

Can someone tell me why using LVLCHK(*NO) would the a bad thing to do in
this situation.

Michael Smith
_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.