RE: Procedure names vs. production support

["Wilt, Charles" <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Rick.Chevalier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:56 PM
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Procedure names vs. production support
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input.  Rather than individual replies I'm 
> going to try and address each reply in one e-mail.
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Why not option 2?  I'm asking because that is what appears to 
> be the choice of others in the department I have discussed this with. 
> 
> The idea of HTML-based documentation sounds good.  We do have 
> a homegrown application for tracking production issues and 
> resolutions.  It has been mentioned that the service programs 
> could be documented there.  It's not web enabled (yet) but 
> its a start.

Option 2 handicaps you considerably when trying to find an already written 
procedure to reuse.

I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks one procedure, per module is a 
good idea.

Additionally, CALLP SP4351M is considerably less self-documenting than the 
alternatives.


> 
> Scott,
> 
> Interesting idea.  I hadn't thought about using the service 
> program name as a prefix.  It could make for some long names, 
> but I don't think that is much of an issue anymore.
> 
> Joe and Bruce,
> 
> I don't think Hawkeye goes to the procedure level 
> unfortunately.  It shouldn't be hard to create a module 
> cross-reference and schedule a job to refresh it on a regular 
> basis.  The difficulty would be in getting support staff to 
> look at it.

Actually, v9 of Hawkeye does include procedure level cross reference.



HTH,
Charles