|
I do this but I compile the service program with ACTGRP(*CALLER) and leave LR off in the 'GET' sub-procedure. Actually it is an SQL sub-procedure that returns a pointer to a MODS. Sort of like returning a record set. The only caveat is that I have to pass a numeric variable and populate it with the number of records returned in order to process the MODS in the calling procedure. Thanks, Mark Mark Walter Sr. Programmer/Analyst Hanover Wire Cloth a div of CCX, Inc. mwalter@hanoverwire.com http://www.hanoverwire.com 717.637.3795 Ext.3040 /"\ \ / X / \ |--------+--------------------------------> | | "Chevalier, Rick" | | | <Rick.Chevalier@americ| | | redit.com> | | | Sent by: | | | rpg400-l-admin@midrang| | | e.com | | | | | | | | | 11/22/2002 02:28 PM | | | Please respond to | | | rpg400-l | | | | |--------+--------------------------------> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'rpg400-l@midrange.com'" <rpg400-l@midrange.com> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Main Proc for Subproc not compiling | >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Joe, I don't think it's as easy as it sounds to allocate the storage and pass back the record read. I have tried this in some sub-procedures and ran into a problem. When the sub-program ended the memory was released. The pointer made it back to the calling program OK but the storage it pointed to didn't contain the data I wanted. I had to pass the pointer into the sub-procedure to make it work. Of course it could be I just wasn't doing something correctly with the sub-procedure. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:30 PM To: rpg400-l@midrange.com Subject: RE: Main Proc for Subproc not compiling > From: Barbara Morris > > You could return the structure instead of using a parm, but that might > involve returning a "large value", which is not really recommended. This is an interesting point, Barbara. Let's say I want to create a group of procedures that are, for lack of a better term, object-like. By that, I mean that I use them to grab data from the database, pass it around to other procedures, and eventually perhaps update it. For example, let's say it's item data. Okay, I want to use a data structure to hold this data. And since I can have multiple "instances" of the data, I want the application, not the procedure, to keep track of the storage. Finally, say that one of the procedures is the "create" (or perhaps "get" is a better word) procedure. Something like this: H nomain FITEMFILE if e disk D ItemDS e ds extname(ITEMFILE) D GetItem pr like(ItemDS) EXTPROC('GETITEM') D ItemKey like(ITEMNUMBER) const ITEMBUMBER is an alpha field, so I could conceivably do: C eval ItemDS = GetItem('MyItemKey') But you're suggesting that returning a DS is not a good idea. Why is that? And what would you recommend instead? D GetItem pr 10I 0 EXTPROC('GETITEM') D ItemPtr * const D ItemKey like(ITEMNUMBER) const C eval rc = GetItem(%addr(ItemDS):'MyItemKey) And having the called procedure copy the data into the pointer? I actually can see where this might have more utility, because the 'rc' allows for better error checking. I'm just trying to get my head around a generic way to handle these sorts of object-based issues. Way back when, we did exactly this sort of thing with C, although we usually went one step further: H nomain FITEMFILE if e disk D ItemDS e ds extname(ITEMFILE) BASED(pItemDS) D GetItem pr like(pItemDS) EXTPROC('GETITEM') D ItemKey like(ITEMNUMBER) const C eval pItemDS = GetItem('MyItemKey) GetItem would actually allocate the memory for the ItemDS and return it. We'd check pItemDS for null to check for an error. I suppose I could just as easily code: D GetItem pr 10I 0 EXTPROC('GETITEM') D ItemPtr like(pItemDS) D ItemKey like(ITEMNUMBER) const C eval rc = GetItem(pItemDS:'MyItemKey) Since pItemDS is not constant, the called procedure could allocate the memory and update the pointer. Given this plethora of options, which is suggested and why? Joe _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
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.
midrange.com
