PGMLVL(*PRV) is useless? Ok, I have to comment. Maybe there's something I'm missing which would result in me not having to use *PRV, but as it stands, I am a fan.
Let's say I have 40 programs using one service program. I now add an exported procedure (no CMS here), and that new exported procedure is only used by 5 of those 40 programs. Why would I not have a *PRV Export List signature so I can safely leave those other 35 programs be?
If I ever do modify any of those 35 programs, then they will have to be compiled, and they will pick up the latest signature.
And in regard to Vern as an ISP - I really don't see why *PRV wouldn't benefit you. Your requirement was to not require the customer to recompile. Well, there you go. Unless I'm not understanding the exact change you had in mind (I did come into this thread late).
I still think Scott's idea of embedding the version number into a signature is neat, although nothing more useful than readability (and one should never underestimate readability). Although as someone stated, a programmer-defined signature is prone to error (i.e. forgetting to change it).
-Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lim Hock-Chai
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:33 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Service programs and QSRVSRC
*PRV is a useless feature. There is not much of a history or any
safegard that one can get out of the *prv. *PRV does nothing but create
work and possible mistake that could cause program to fail.
There is only two options for me:
Option 1:
Use static sig and if you really want to force a massive recompile, add
version to the static sig.
Option 2:
Don't use binding language. Just always do export all. This will mean
that each time you add/remove export procedure, you will need to
recompile all the programs that use that service program.
"M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:<mailman.6343.1255456396.1811.rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>...
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
midrange.com
