RE: Function Opinion -- RPG400-L

No, because you don't use the *MODULE anymore once it is bound into a
Service Program. You bind your programs to the service program, not the
module.
One module per service program is easier to manage, but not recommended as a
restrictive shop standard. Meaning it isn't bad to do that, but it isn't bad
to use more than one module in a service program. It depends on how well
organized your development process is. 
Typically this kind of restriction is cause by the standards people have in
their shops with regards to source code. Do you keep all your source in XYZ
source file in library ABC?  If so, then development can get to be a
management problem. I prefer to keep source in libraries where the
application source for app A is stored in one library and the source for app
B is stored in another. 
If also seen standards whereby shops keep all their source in one source
file regardless of the SEU type; that is, DSPF, RPGLE, SQLRPGLE, PF, etc.
are all stored in the same file (e.g., QSOURCE). If the QSOURCE is in a
library that applies to a single application (fyi app <> pgm in my view)
then the source file it is stored in is not important. If all your source
for all your apps is stored in something like a single QSOURCE source file,
then your just asking for problems down the road.
Remember programming is about moving 1's and 0's around, the act of moving
those ones and zeros around is NOT a black and white issue.


Bob Cozzi
Cozzi Consulting
www.rpgiv.com


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Chevalier, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:43 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Function Opinion

Duane,

I am following this thread with much interest because this issue is
starting to arise in our shop.

What I don't understand about the one module per service program
approach is this, if you create a module to then create a service
program isn't the service program redundant?  It seems that it would
unnecessarily complicate things.  Why not just bind the module into your
program and not worry about the service program?

Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnson, Duane [mailto:djohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:28 AM
> To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
> Subject: RE: Function Opinion
> 
> 
>   Oh, Thank you very much.
>   I prefer to use one module per service program.  
> Maintenance is greatly
> simplified, I can use a binding directory (one per program) 
> to define all
> the modules and service programs used, and I NEVER have to worry about
> binder language, signatures, etc.
> 
> Duane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob cozzi [mailto:cozzi@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
> Subject: RE: Function Opinion
> 
> That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of with regards to
> Service Program design.
> Bob Cozzi
> Cozzi Consulting
> www.rpgiv.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) 
> mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.