Re: Feedback on iProjects - good, bad and ugly

Concur!

I wish I could "mark" one as *PGM and another for a *MODULE or maybe *SRVPGM.

Instead of having to manually Edit/Correct the compile.clle program. Which was okay for a "Starter", but not for long term using iProjects. Because that is lot of extra work, when it should be more automated if possible...

I don't see my Microsoft Dot-Net co-workers have to create a "Compile-Program" inside of Visual Studio. They basically deal with the source and build the project. Which is the point of "Projects. Work with source and build the objects...

We should not have to manually configure the build process. The only way I know that would be feasible is by source types, which is what most C.M.S. do, such as Softlanding/Turnover has us tell what type this "RPGLE" is going to be. Such as *MODULE, *PGM, Service-Program, etc. by a "type-Code".

Example:
RPGLE = CRTBNDRPG
SQLRPM = Create SQLRPGLE Module
RPGSRV = RPG Service Program
RPGLEC = RPG Copy-Book (No compile)
RPGSQL = RPG SQL program

Too many extra steps in iProject, which is while I do not use it more. It can really complicate what should be a "simple" process...

Gee, I guess iProject is not designed to a simple and a C.M.S. (Change Management System).

I guess I have opened up a "can of worms" here... <LOL>


-Ken Killian-


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] Feedback on iProjects - good, bad and ugly

Yes, I know about the BIND.CLLE but it doesn't work for my typical development workflow. When I have to manually edit the COMPILE.CLLE anyway then adding another member to maintain for building the project makes it unnecessarily redundant.

Mitch

.