Re: QCLSRC, QRPGSRC, etc... best practice?

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I definitely don't like the name QCPYSRC!!  Yuck!  There are a few reasons:

1) It starts with Q.  In my opinion, only IBM should create objects that 
start with Q.

2) Its inconsistent... all of your other files have the language name in 
them (CL, RPG, RPGLE) but this one has "CPY" which language is CPY?    
Do you put all copy books for all programming languages in it?   Or, 
have you decided you'll never use anything aside from RPGLE?

3) Why not a less ambiguous name like RPGLECPY, or RPGLEINC?  Are you 
worried that people won't know it's a source file?

4) Considering this to be "modern" is really a stretch.  Yeah, in the 
mid-90's when this stuff was new, it became a popular technique.  Today, 
you'd be much better off using IFS, it's a million times more flexible, 
and works much better with software like git, (or svn if you don't like 
git), file transfer software, etc.   You'll need to store all the code 
for most other languages (Ruby, PHP, Python, Java, Node.js, HTML, CSS, 
JavaScript, etc) in the IFS, anyway, as source members won't be an 
option.  If you're going to go through the pain of changing things, 
anyway, this would be a better alternative.   (But a headache to change 
if you have a lot of infrastructure built around src-pfs)

-SK


On 10/27/2018 3:39 PM, Booth Martin wrote:
> I am having to rethink an old habit and realizing times change, 
> perhaps I should, too?
>
> I stopped using QCLSRC, QRPGSRC, QRPGLESSRC, etc a very long time ago; 
> I prefer all related source grouped together in a recognizable naming 
> pattern.  Easy to see and easy to police.
>
> I am seeing discussion about the necessity of using QCPYSRC as a 
> PF-SRC file.  Is that a universally held practice in RPG-World? Is 
> this a compelling reason to revert back to 1980s practices?