RE: Call back procedures

No, our debate is between batching up a group of errors and passing them back in a parameter or making the call back each time we encounter an error. Using the call back will allow the caller to terminate the edit routine on terminal errors but continue on warning errors. Passing as parms requires all edits to be done before returning.


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rory Hewitt
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:09 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: Call back procedures

No reason they'd be any slower than anything else (except *maybe* a subroutine 'call', if that's your other option besides using a callback).

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:05 AM, <Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A question has been raised about performance. Have you noticed any
performance issues?

It seems to me that it would be just like any other bound procedure call.
The target is already in memory. I would just be making a call based
on an address.

--
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.



Privileged and Confidential. This e-mail, and any attachments there to, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by a return e-mail and delete this e-mail. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and/or any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.