Re: ILE philosophy

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, don't even waste your time with modules in a binding directory.
Just create service programs & binder source.

Binder source doesn't create maintenance problems, it solves them.
You could do all of your service programs without even using binder
source, and that would create maintenance problems, but not as many
problems as binding directly to the modules will create.

I doubt you'll ever notice the speed difference between bind-by-copy
and bind-by-reference...  At least, I don't.


On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Rich Duzenbury wrote:

> I am at the ILE crossroads today.  I understand OPM RPG well.  I understand
> basic RPG IV (That is, a self contained ILE program) programming well.  I
> can create a module and make it work with my main program, no problem.
>
> I'm not sure how to manage all my modules yet.  I think I have to select
> the high road or low road now.
>
> Currently, I'm looking at the low road:  Add each module to a binding
> directory.  Upon changing a module, recompile every program that uses that
> module.  Not too difficult, and something I'm used to in the event of, say,
> a database change.  Positives: Simple.  Bind by copy is fast at
> runtime.  Negatives: have to recompile, perhaps the world, for some changes.
>
> Now the high road: Add each module to a service program.  Add service
> program to binding directory.  Upon changing a module, recompile service
> program.  Muddle around with binder language source and signatures
> (?).  Hope that everything stays up-to-date and
> working.  Positives:  Changes can be made without having to recompile tons
> of code.  Negatives: Bind by reference is slower at runtime.  Seemingly
> much more maintenance hassle to deal with the signatures and binder
> language source.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong here because I haven't used service programs.  Is the
> service program approach really the bees knees?  What have you done to KISS
> the maintenance of the service programs?  Finally, how do you manage your
> service programs.  Do you have one huge service program, or a bunch of
> smaller ones?  How do you decide which functions belong in which service
> programs?
>
> And a last aside:  I took a look at binding directory QC2LE for hints.  It
> is made up of service programs that are made up of other service programs,
> and sometimes modules.  Is it normal (even desirable) to build a heirarchy
> of service programs?
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rich