|
Rick, Option 1 or 3 are good. To solve the documentation issue, I would move towards using HTML-based helptext and document each procedure. That way a procedure name may be typed into the search engine of the htmlhelp and quickly locate the procedure. I do this with the RPG xTools and it seems to work fine. You can download the documentation for xTools to see what I'm talking about--no cost or registration involved in doing that--at the following URL. www.rpgxtools.com Then click on the link on the top right-hand corner that says "Download the html-based helptext". HTH -Bob -----Original Message----- From: rpg400-l-bounces+cozzi=rpgiv.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces+cozzi=rpgiv.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:31 AM To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Procedure names vs. production support I'm trying to advance development in our shop to using procedures for specific business logic and combining them into service programs. The issue I'm coming up against involves how to name the procedures. If an error occurs in a production run the message will identify the procedure receiving the error, which may or may not be the name of the source member, causing confusion and delaying problem resolution. I have listed the options I have come up with so far. Option 1 is to give the procedures descriptive names so that developers can more easily identify what the procedure does. For example, WrtPmtRec if the procedure writes a payment record. This is the option I'm trying to sell but I'm having trouble coming up with a documentation method that would solve the production support issue. Option 2 is to name the procedure the same as the actual source member (currently 1 procedure = 1 module = 1 source member) so that the person on call can more easily identify the source member of the procedure in error. For example, the WrtPmtRec procedure would become SP4351M. This is the counter proposal I have received. It solves the production support issue but I think it will make development harder as the names have become cryptic. Option 3 is to use descriptive names for both the procedure and the source member. I like this one but over time I think we would run into naming conflicts with similar procedures. I'd like to hear opinions on these options and how others on the list have resolved this situation in their environment. TIA, Rick Privileged and Confidential. This e-mail, and any attachments there to, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by a return e-mail and delete this e-mail. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. -- 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.
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
