Re: Maintaining Service Program signatures

I hear you, Alan, yet I've seen that IBM seems to use the single-signature technique - they have signatures that are, in fact, the name of the service program.

Maybe someone knows that they will never change the procedures in the *SRVPGM.

I actually don't see the parallel with level checks. What do you see as the dangers? You didn't give too many details.

Thanks
Vern

On 2/19/2013 3:48 PM, Alan Campin wrote:

I am strongly opposed to the idea of using fixed signatures. It is the
equivalent to turning off level checks on a table. Just playing Russian
Roulette. Eventually you are going to blow out your brains.

Signatures exist for a reason.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM, RPGLIST <rpglist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is there an easy way to avoid problems with signatures since we are
supposed to have the ability to add new modules to a service program that
will not require us to recompile all the objects that depend on that
service program.



--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (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.