Re: How to Find what module a procedure is located in

[Alan Campin <alan0307d@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see this going on all over the place and it is the biggest No, No I can
think of. Putting the same module into multiple programs or service
programs is a disaster. I routinely bind a CLLE driver to a RPGLE module
and many casees RPGLE to CLLE to perform specific functions I want to
perform but they have the same naming.

The other big No, No I keep see is people naming modules with a different
name for each module.

I use a system like

XVERRH  Top Level
XVERRH_PR
XVERRH_B
XVERRH_M01
XVERRH_M02
XVERRH_M03

but I keep seeing stuff like

DS8924RP - Module One
DS8925RP - Module Two
DS8926RP - Module three

Bound up to make say DS8927RP or something like it. What is bundled with
wha?. What a nightmare.





On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Mark S Waterbury <
mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Vern:
>
> Your example below does not violate my suggestion, of binding a given
> *MODULE into one place (a single *PGM or *SRVPGM).  I said nothing about
> any given *PGM or *SRVPGM being composed of one or more *MODULEs. =-O
>
> Let;s say your CLLE *MODULE is named CLLE1, and your RPGLE *MODULE is
> named RPGLE1 ... what I am saying is that you should almost never "bind
> by copy" either one of those two modules into more than one *PGM or
> *SRVPGM.  I did not say that you should avoid binding both of them
> together into a single *PGM or *SRVPGM.
>
> The issue I was speaking to is "maintenance" -- if you bind the same
> *MODULE into many *PGMs and/or multiple *SRVPGMs, then any time you have
> to "fix" code in that *MODULE, you must "hunt down" every place it is
> bound into, and replace it, either using UPDPGM or UPDSRVPGM, or using
> CRTPGM or CRTSRVPGM to recreate from all of the component *MODULEs
> (assuming you keep them around.)
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Mark S. Waterbury
>
>  > On 2/7/2013 10:50 AM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> > I've heard this recommendation a couple times in these threads. It seems
> > to go against one of the principle "benefits" of ILE - that one can
> > combine modules in different languages.
> >
> > One question is, how much benefit IS that? I find at least one situation
> > to be beneficial, as described here -
> >
> > We often have a front-end CL that sets up the environment, then calls an
> > RPG program to do the work.
> >
> > I think it's a good idea to change the call to a CALLPRC, make the RPG
> > into a module, same with the CL, and link the 2 together - one program
> > object instead of two, for what it's worth.
> >
> > Now that adds its own complexity to things, in my experience. Here is
> > where a change management app is helpful.
> >
> > To add to the idea, the RPG module can have multiple procedures, and the
> > CL can call them as needed - instead of calling several separate
> > programs, again reducing the number of program objects.
> >
> > Just an idea - that a CL driver program can make calls into a linked
> > module instead of separate programs.
> >
> > FWIW
> > Vern
> >
> > On 2/7/2013 9:36 AM, Mark S Waterbury wrote:
> > > -snip-
> > >
> > > Maintenance will be easier if you avoid binding *MODULEs into more than
> > > one place (one *PGM or one *SRVPGM only).
> > -snip-
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.