Re: Service programs and QSRVSRC

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Buck,

 A downside to that approach is that the programmer looking at the 
single sig doesn't know that there was some history to this 
*SRVPGM.  Using *PRV would usually accomplish the same goal (no 
recompile required to those programs that are not using the new 
functionality), but would let the programmer know that there might be 
multiple versions around.

 It's no big deal either way, but I don't see a huge advantage to 
named sigs.  As to IBM's not using *PRV in their own modules, I'm 
curious how they manage their object generation so that everything is 
in sync and it's never an issue.

 -mark


At 10/13/09 01:28 PM, you wrote:
> M. Lazarus wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
> >  But what's the upside to manually managed sigs?  Does it buy you much?
> > If all you are looking for is an additional area to put version info,
> > there are other places to do that without disabling what little
> > protection it does afford.
>
> In my environment, the upside is that when I add a new procedure I don't
> need to recompile all the client (consumer) programs.  If I keep only
> one *CUR block and add a new procedure at the bottom, the system would
> generate a new signature, forcing a recompile.  By manually forcing the
> same signature, I don't.
>
> >  Either way, I think you need to know what you're doing when building
> > *SRVPGMs.
>
> Absolutely agree!
>   --buck