----------------------------------------<snip>-----------------------------------
IMHO: exits as a subspecies are evil critters. They become an ongoing
maintenance challenge and tend to attract unwelcome attention from
auditors. Exits are hard to write, hard to stress test, and introduce a
level of risk. You need extraordinary measures in place to protect the
code.
-------------------------------------<unsnip>-------------------------------------
I disagree, Hal. Exits CAN be overused and poorly coded; no argument
there. But they often provide the only mechanism of tayloring function
to fit business or technical needs, or sometimes arbitrary mandates from
senior management. Testing a new installation or upgraded level of the
OS need not be excessively delayed by the presence of exits; you just
need to have good, solid code and a good testing methodology in place.
But you need that anyway, don't you? As far as auditors are concerned,
if they know what they're actually auditing, then they will understand
reasoned arguments in favor of the appropriate exit. And of course
you're going to protect ANY exit as carefully, or more carefully, than
any other piece of APF-authorized code. Right?
--
Rick
--
Remember that if you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
