RE: Function Opinion

[Joel Cochran <jrc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

I don't think Rick is advocating bound by copy.  I think he is saying
that IF you have one procedure per module, and one module per service
program, and one service program per binding directory, and one binding
directory per program, what is the point?  With all of that it would be
easier to simply bind by copy.

That's how I see it, anyway...

Joel

On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 16:29, Scott Mildenberger wrote:
> Because service programs are bound by reference while modules
> are bound by copy.  Bind by reference greatly simplifies
> maintenance when any of the procedures are changed.
> 
> Scott Mildenberger
> 
> --- "Chevalier, Rick" <Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.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.