Re: Service Program Question

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

I think having a binding directory exclusively for use when building
the SRVPGM is a nice idea.  I've seen it recommended by others.

I've not actually used that method, as I've always used a CMS which
allowed you to specifiy the CRTSRVPGM command options, in particular
the modules required.  So I just have to enter them once and as long
as the CMS is used to create the service program, things are fine.

Charles

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jim Minisce <jminisce@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>      I am updating a service program (TXTUTILS) that includes several modules (I am actually adding a couple more modules).  There currently is a binding directory (TXTUTILS) that has only one entry, which is the service program (TXTUTILS).  There are many RPG programs that reference the binding directory within the H specs in order to use the subprocedures.  I am also using binder language to handle the signatures.  Since we use a CMS application to move the code from DEV, QA and PROD, I am getting tired of entering each module in the CRTSRVPGM command.
>
>   My question is this:  Would it be considered best practice to create another binding directory that contains all the modules that make up the service program and reference that on the CRTSRVPGM command or am I adding another level of complexity that really does not add value?  The goal would be to minimize and simplify the promotion process through the change management application.
>
>  Thank you in advance for your input.
>
>   Jim Minisce
>   Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.