Re: RPG Service Program vs Include Source for Shared Subprocedures and SQL Calls

Neils, did this nightmare arise from system-generated Signatures - or from user-defined Signatures? (I would have thought the latter provides both flexibility and control - but please correct me.)

I assume you define one, fixed Signature now? So how do you manage version control?

Interesting.

Brian.

On 21/03/2026 11:28, Niels Liisberg wrote:

.. but service program signatures quickly becomes a nightmare for version
control.. yes you can … but.. first you had one problem with control the
version .. now for each signature you have yet an issue..

Been there - done that.. never again…

lør. 21. mar. 2026 kl. 18.21 skrev Brian Parkins <goodprophet.bp@xxxxxxxxx>:

Even under these circumstances a *SRVPGM <may> provide a solution.

Multiple versions of the same procedure can co-exist in a single
*SRVPGM, (provided the names are unique). The flexibility of Signatures
and the Export Symbol Table.

100% agree that *SRVPGMs are the better option; /COPY and /INCLUDE
should - in the main - be used only for Prototype inclusion, (with /IF,
/DEFINE, etc. as required).

Brian.

On 21/03/2026 05:22, Niels Liisberg wrote:

The is some exceptions: versioning - where different clients need

different

versions at a certain point in time.

--
This is the RPG programming on IBM i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.