Re: Question about service programs

[Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8-Aug-08, at 8:53 AM, Simon Coulter wrote:

> Note1: The inconsistencies in the various CRTBNDxxx commands
> seriously irritates me.
>
> 		BNDDIR	ACTGRP	DFTACTGRP
> CRTBNDC		  N	   N	    N
> CRTBNDCBL	  Y	   Y	    N
> CRTBNDCL	  N	   Y	    Y
> CRTBNDCPP	  N	   N	    N
> CRTBNDRPG	  Y	   Y	    Y
>
> I'm not surprised by the lack of support on the C and C++ commands
> because they are obviously written by people with NO understanding of
> OS/400 (witness the blindingly stupid use of the OUTPUT parameter as
> a case in point) but I would expect System DCG (if it still exists)
> to ensure consistency. All these commands should support all three
> keywords even if DFTACTGRP is a bad idea (and don't get me started on
> STGMDL).

In some ways the only real inconsistency here is with the lack of  
BNDDIR on CRTBNDCL - and I thought they were fixing that in 6.1 but  
maybe not.

I think the problem is more that the parameter name DFTACTGRP was  
always a truly stupid one.  If it had been named sensibly it would  
have been CMPMODE (or whatever Compatibility Mode would become).  Seen  
in that context, the differences make more sense in that the C, C++,  
and COBOL compilers do not offer compatibility mode operation.  You  
can make a good arguement that COBOL certainly should have offered  
compatibility mode (and I'll accept my share of the blame for the fact  
that it doesn't) but there were budgetary constraints at the time that  
made it impossible to incorporate.

Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com