Re: Signature violations (was: RPG is Dead? Say it aint so!)

On 6/21/07, Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It is ILE that has to be improved in terms
> of eliminating signature violations,

I'm missing something here. I have been using service programs since
they were invented and the only time I get a signature violation is when
I've done a Very Bad Thing. Why would you want IBM to remove signature
violations? Beyond that, why don't you simply compile all your service
programs with the same signature, something like signature('STEVE') -
then you'd never get a signature violation and you wouldn't have to wait
for IBM...

the problem with assigning a signature is if you ever remove a
procedure from the binding source, or insert a new one ( in
alphabetical order ) you will have all sorts of problems. The export
numbers will not match up. Where a program will be calling procedure
payroll_addEmployee as export number 22, by changing the binding
source w/o changing the signature, export number 22 could instead be
payroll_DeleteEmployee. Meaning, your program thinks it is calling
"payroll_AddEmployee", but instead "payroll_DeleteEmployee" is called.

ILE was implemented back in the day when the CPU was a lot slower and
more expensive than what you get on the p5 today. Whatever methods
java and .net use to find the method being called is no doubt more cpu
intensive, but it is a lot easier on the programmer.

RPG programmers are faulted all the time for not adopting ILE. which
I think is unfair because there are a few extra steps you have to
learn, steps which the OS could easily be handling automatically.

-Steve