Re: Function Opinion

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich Duzenbury wrote:
> At 04:53 PM 10/15/03, Anton Gombkötö wrote:
>
> > Many RPGers have learned about  the joys of service programs, which
> > were designed to collect multiple modules together to simplify object
> > management. But we’ve found that many shops apparently create all of
> > their service programs with only one module. While there’s nothing
> > technically wrong with this approach, it seems a waste of a
> > “collection” object to have only one item in the collection.
>
>
> Yeah, I've thought of doing that, but that approach *cries out* for a 
> make utility.  Right now, I focus setting up my code so that  hitting 
> option 14 or 15 in PDM will actually create an object that is useful.  
> That doesn't seem to happen if I need to prompt the create service 
> program command, and then fiddle around with which modules to include in 
> it.  I just know I'll screw it up somewhere along the line.
>
> So for now, one or many functions go into one module, one module goes 
> into one service program.  Each service program is added to one binding 
> directory.  Binding directory is referenced by each main program.  It's 
> simplistic, but it gets the job done.  So far, most programs open only a 
> few service programs, but I am concerned about the potential performance 
> hit.

Yup, I find that that is what I end up doing, also.  For me, the binding 
directory ends up being the equivalent of one of C's .so shared 
libraries.  Many functions in one module, one module per service 
program, many service programs per binding directory.

James Rich