RE: Prototyped Procedures

As someone who once worked in the softwarehouse schema, I have to disagree 
with:
> 2) Consumers only need the prototypes. They have no business looking
at
> the implementation in a properly designed interface.

If I'm debugging, I had better be able to see the source code of the
modules I'm calling.

As a person creating a program with cutting edge technology, exactly why 
would I want you to be able to see the source code?  For that matter why 
would you want ot be debugging it?  That's what customer support is for 
isn't it?  I've had to deal with one too many "in-house" programmers that 
thought they knew what they were doing in the past, only to cause me 
headaches and hours of searching through data to correct mistakes they 
made because they "thought" if I write this program to do this when this 
program is called, and I put it in my lib list so that it's picked up, 
then everything will be gravy.  Yeah, too bad they didn't know enough to 
keep an eye on the temperature, because all they'd end up with is a 
saucepan with thick gunk burned all over the sides.

I can see plenty of reason not wanting my source code in the hands of a 
n00b.  I can also see plenty of reason not wanting my source code in the 
hands of a guru either, for fear that he/she would steal my ideas. 

Just my two cents.  And being Canadian, that's about 1.6 cents US.  Hehe.

Ron Power
Programmer
Information Services
City Of St. John's, NL
P.O. Box 908
St. John's, NL
A1C 5M2
Tel: 709-576-8132
Email: rpower@xxxxxxxxxx
Website: http://www.stjohns.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm. - 
Sir Winston Churchill




"Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
03/02/2005 01:58 AM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: Prototyped Procedures






> From: Simon Coulter
> 
> Bad idea for a number of reasons.

Most of which are opinions (with which I disagree).


> 1) The only reason you get away with it is because the code is
> in-house.

Yep.  API sales.  This one matters to people who sell APIs.


> 2) Consumers only need the prototypes. They have no business looking
at
> the implementation in a properly designed interface.

If I'm debugging, I had better be able to see the source code of the
modules I'm calling.

 
> 3) If someone forgets the proper DEFINE they get the source copied
into
> the program leading to all manner of peculiar behaviour:

If someone forgets a semicolon in /free, they get all kinds of peculiar
behavior.  If someone forgets the "F" in an F-spec, they get all kinds
of peculiar behavior.


> 4) It's just plain ugly to require the consumer to decide whether they
> want the code or not.

Eye of the beholder.  Personally, I LIKE the fact that all my prototype
includes are nicely encapsulated inside a /DEFINE PROTOTYPE and a
/UNDEFINE PROTOYPE.


> /copy rpgleinc,fbnmath
> /copy rpgleinc,fbnstring
> /copy rpgleinc,fbndate
> 
> is much cleaner than forcing the consumer to remember to code
> /define prototypes
> /copy rpgleinc,fbnmath
> /copy rpgleinc,fbnstring
> /copy rpgleinc,fbndate
> /undefine prototypes

"much cleaner"?  How?


> 5) Having a separate define for each prototype name is even uglier.

Not sure who brought this up.  Not me.


On the other hand, there are real reasons to use the /DEFINE PROTOTYPE
method.  I may want to define an area in the caller and not in the
callee.  That area may need a predefined layout, such as a data
structure.  With the use of the /DEFINE, the source member can define
the data structure in both places as based, but actually define data for
it in the caller:

D MyParmDS        s                   based(pMyParmDS)
  (...) DS Subfield definitions
D MyProcedure     PR
D   pDS                           *

 /IF DEFINED(PROTOTYPE)
DwMyParmDS         s                  like(MyParmDS)
DpMyParmDS         s              *   inz(%addr(wMyParmDS))
 /EOF
 /ENDIF

In the single include technique, I'd have to hand-code those last two
lines.  Two lines may not be much, but it gets more involved with more
complex structures.  Whether you like this technique or dislike it, it
can only be done with a single include member.

Joe

-- 
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.