RE: A design philosophy question

[Buck Calabro <Buck.Calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I guess it isn't so much a question of flexibilty
>as it is a preference.  I would prefer to write the
>modules in a service program rather than call them
>staticly.  The reason for this preference is that I
>can to reuse the pieces of the service program(s)
>for other purposes.

OK.  Back to terminology for a moment.  'Static' is using a service
program/bound copy.  'Dynamic' is OPM CALL/PARM.  But I completely
understand you.  I don't think I did a good job communicating my intent, so
I'll try again.

PGM MAIN
  Fdisplay CF WORKSTN
  C* get data
  C  call server
  C  parm ...
  C  EXFMT ...

and
PGM DSPPGM
  Fdisplay CF WORKSTN
  C  EXFMT ...

Looking at MAIN, I can replace that EXFMT several ways.  One is to write a
procedure and put it in a service program.  Another is to write a
dynamically callable program like DSPPGM.  Either way, I can reuse the
display logic.  The major drawback to the dynamic program is the crippled
name.  The drawback to the service program is that it is harder to change
WHICH procedure I want to call at run-time.  With a dynamic call. I can have
a file that tells me that option 1 goes to GLPGM, option 2 goes with ARPGM
and so on.
  --buck