RE: Subprocedure Question

Paul,

I grant you that it would be a bad thing to change, for example, the number of 
required parameters on a procedure in a service program without assigning a new 
"static" signature.

However, the idea is to only change the signature when it needs to be changed.  
If the only thing you're doing is adding new procedures or new _omittable_ 
parameters to current procedure, then there is no reason to change the 
signature thus forcing all programs using the procedure to be recompiled.

In short, IMHO:
physical file LVLCHK(*NO) == BAD THING
srvpgm LVLCHK(*NO) == BAD THING
hard coded sig, changed when needed == GOOD THING


Charles Wilt
--
iSeries Systems Administrator / Developer
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America
ph: 513-573-4343
fax: 513-398-1121
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Morgan
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:47 PM
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Subprocedure Question
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Thanks for the quibble and being more specific on what should 
> go into the
> binder source to make it work the SAME way as LVLCHK(*NO).
> 
> Hard coding in a signature (which is what I mentioned) in the 
> binder source
> will also work.  The program won't blow up when it uses the 
> service program
> after the service program has been modified because the 
> signature never
> changes.
> 
> Either way to avoid a level check on the service program 
> could be bad for
> the program using the service program just as a file change 
> with LVLCHK(*NO)
> could cause problems.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Paul Morgan
> Senior Programmer Analyst - Retail
> J. Jill Group
> 100 Birch Pond Drive, PO Box 2009
> Tilton, NH 03276-2009
> Phone: (603) 266-2117
> Fax:   (603) 266-2333