Re: Separate buisness and display logic question

[Albert York <alfromme@xxxxxxxxx>]

I never said I use the LDA exclusively and don't pass parameters.

I am simply saying that the LDA is a tool, that when used correctly,
can be useful.

Anything can be used poorly. Assuming that the two processes passed
parameters instead of using the LDA. How would it be easier to
integrate them? You would need to change the parameter list for every
program that calls your changed program, even if it has no relevence
to the change you are making.

Albert

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Morgan, Paul <Paul.Morgan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So you've never had to integrate two processes that define the LDA differently?  Get ready to write a utility to save the current state of the LDA, run the other process, then restore the LDA to the previous state.  What a nightmare.  All just because you won't pass parameters and the LDA is 'easy to use'.
>
> In a similar vein I'm using the GDA to pass parameters between group jobs.  Wish I could avoid using the GDA but you can't pass parameters to a group job initial program.
>
> Paul
>
> Principal Programmer Analyst
> IT Supply Chain/Replenishment
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Albert York
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:46 PM
> To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
> Subject: Re: Separate buisness and display logic question
>
> I have never had a problem understanding data being passed in the LDA.
> It's no different than global variables, except it spans across
> programs.
>
> Would it have been easier if you had to change 20-30 parms that were
> being passed as parameters?
>
> Instead of simply an /include you should have taken the opportunity to
> externailize the layout of the LDA so it would be standard  and future
> changes would be even easier.
>
> Just because you are not comfortable with a technology doesn't mean it
> isn't useful.
>
> Albert
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Harman, Roger <Roger.Harman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It's way too obscure using the LDA.  If I call a program with parm('mypo#'  'mychangeorder')  or look at the called program and see a plist or procedure prototype or interface, it's abundantly clear where the info came from.  If it is passed in the LDA, it's not at all clear how/where it came from or got there.
> >
> > I recently had to change a number of programs that passed 20-30 parms in the LDA.  We were expanding an account number.   What a pain.  I did externalize the LDA layout to a '/include' but still far too much work.  Plus, the intermediate CL's that manipulated the LDA.
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
>
>
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.