Re: Service programs and QSRVSRC

Kurt,

I think the point is that if you had a hard-coded signature, you wouldn't
have to recompile anything anyway. You just leave the signature as it was
before you added the new procedure. No need to add the *PRV block or
anything else - just add the new procedure.

If you're using generated signatures, then yes, you need to use *PRV in
order not to have to recompile all 40 programs. So *PRV isn't useless - it's
a requirement. But if you use hard-coded signatures in the first place, then
your life would be much easier.

Rory

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Kurt Anderson <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wrote:

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