RE: dRE: No Subroutines (was Re: Debugging many subprocedures)

 

> Look at XVERRH in my Trigger Mediator. I use the ERRH_Throw 
> to throw an error and use message definitions with second 
> level help with all the details. The error is thrown, and the 
> next level up either catches it or it lets it end with the 
> message containing all the details. Clean and easy. Don't 
> have to mess with coding error routines and next level needs 
> to know a lot more about an error than just the procedure 
> name. We have the best examples in the world when looking at 
> IBM messages. Most of the time clear and concise with all the 
> information they can pack in about the problem. 

Alan,

Passing the procedure name in the message data is an obvious work-around,
and one that I've resorted to in the past.

Lest you think me a newb, I coded my first version of your XXXX_throw()
procedure in V3R2 (1997?), and have been wrapping QMHSNDPM in pgm objects
long before that, so this is not unfamiliar territory for me. I completely
understand what I can and cannot do in terms of wrapping QMHSNDPM in a
procedure. 

There are times I consider it appropriate to call my XXXX_throw() procedure,
and other times when I find it more useful to call QMHSNDPM directly --
using a subroutine to clean-up the code.

I don't consider either technique bad. They both have their place in my bag
of tricks. So I wouldn't think to yell "hey Alan... why the f*k would you
waste space in your message text to pass a procedure name when the OS will
automatically handle it if you call QMHSNDPM directly?".


Regards,

John Taylor