RE: Procedure names vs. production support

Charles,

I agree on the self documentation aspect.  That's my main argument against that 
method and for option 1.

I guess I'm the one person that likes the one procedure per module idea, at 
least here.  The reason is testing.  I've been trying to sell this concept 
since I joined the company almost three years ago.  One of the primary 
objections has been that we would have to test everything anyway whether we 
used modules or not so why bother.  If the source for multiple procedures is in 
a single member management will require that each procedure in the source be 
retested whether it has been changed or not.  This adds to the testing load.  
If each procedure is contained in a separate module with separate source you 
have isolated the testing task to just that object.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Wilt, Charles
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:04 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Procedure names vs. production support


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:56 PM
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Procedure names vs. production support
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input.  Rather than individual replies I'm
> going to try and address each reply in one e-mail.
>
> Bob,
>
> Why not option 2?  I'm asking because that is what appears to
> be the choice of others in the department I have discussed this with.
>
> The idea of HTML-based documentation sounds good.  We do have
> a homegrown application for tracking production issues and
> resolutions.  It has been mentioned that the service programs
> could be documented there.  It's not web enabled (yet) but
> its a start.

Option 2 handicaps you considerably when trying to find an already written 
procedure to reuse.

I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks one procedure, per module is a 
good idea.

Additionally, CALLP SP4351M is considerably less self-documenting than the 
alternatives.


>
> Scott,
>
> Interesting idea.  I hadn't thought about using the service
> program name as a prefix.  It could make for some long names,
> but I don't think that is much of an issue anymore.
>
> Joe and Bruce,
>
> I don't think Hawkeye goes to the procedure level
> unfortunately.  It shouldn't be hard to create a module
> cross-reference and schedule a job to refresh it on a regular
> basis.  The difficulty would be in getting support staff to
> look at it.

Actually, v9 of Hawkeye does include procedure level cross reference.



HTH,
Charles


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.