Re: Maintaining Service Program signatures

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.