Re: Processes after CRTSRVPGM

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark

I think things are different when you are the only ones consuming 
your service program - as a vendor, we have lots of people who would 
need to recompile things - and some have lots of programs built over 
our service programs.

Also, IBM itself does not typically use generated signatures - it 
controls it - often is just the name of the service program. Guess if 
they can live with that, I can too.

Later
Vern

At 09:51 PM 2/13/2008, you wrote:

> Simon,
>
>   You're technically correct, of course, but since I've needed to
> track down an elusive bug due to someone forgetting to change the
> named signature, I've decided to go back to letting the system assign
> the signature.
>
>   Since the compilation and last source change date can be retrieved
> from the object itself, I don't see a major advantage in putting the
> version in the signature.
>
>   -mark
>
> At 2/13/08 04:01 PM, you wrote:
>
> >On 14/02/2008, at 6:57 AM, M. Lazarus wrote:
> >
> > >   That method tells the system that you are managing the
> > > signatures.  This is almost the equivalent of setting LVLCHK(*NO) on
> > > your files.  It gets rid of the error message, but also disables the
> > > error checking!
> >
> >Only if you never change the signature. You can still get signature
> >protection if YOU specify a new signature. For example:
> >
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*CURRENT) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_310)
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_240)
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_230)
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_220)
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_210)
> >STRPGMEXP PGMLVL(*PRV) SIGNATURE('USEFUL_TOOLS_110)
> >
> >This has the advantage of 'meaningful' signatures AND the so-called
> >level check.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Simon Coulter.