Sharon, different folks have different purposes. No "whole purpose" is valid for everyone. On matters like this "good practice" and "bad practice" depend on the approach you've taken. For us pfc/pfe generality, pbl/pbd sharing and inter-version migration simplicity are much more important than the convenience of putting app-specific customisations in the pfe layer. We put _only_ bug fixes in the pfe layer; we like this approach both for the pfc -- corpPbl -- pfe architecture and for the pfc -- pfe -- customPbl architecture. Peter Brawley ----------- Sharon Buntz wrote: > Al, > > > our practice is to freeze the PFE among applications > > But that defeats the whole purpose of creating a new, extra, corporate > "PFD" level in the first place! When you go through the extra effort and > all of adding the extra PFD layer, the PFE level is then intended to be > application-specific as pictured here > > http://www.pfcguide.com/pfcmag/extension_page04.asp#Adding_an_Additional > layer > (See Figure 14 there and the "Limitations" there as well) > > Otherwise, you would simply opt to use the PFE layer directly as your > corporate (framework) level as pictured here > > http://www.pfcguide.com/pfcmag/extension_page03.asp#PFE_as_a_Framework_Layer > > Please realize that all it takes is one, single extra instance variable or > one, single extra function in the PFE (application) level... And then you > enter into what Steve Benfield calls the "GPF-Tug-Of-War" (for your > corporate 3-layer approach) ! > > Don't get me wrong here... The "GPF-Tug-Of-War" is not the enemy, it is a > fact of a PowerBuilder programmer's regeneration life. So adding instance > variables or functions in the PFE layer is not considered "bad practice", > but rather it is the normal or expected practice. The bad practice would > be to not realize the "GPF-Tug-Of-War" possibilities and to not take the > necessary precautions ;-) > > PFCly Yours, > Have fun, > ~Sharon > -- > Sharon Weinstrom Buntz | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cheat Sheet for PFC/PB Help | http://www.pfccheatsheet.com/ > > Al Malin wrote: > > > > Russ, > > > > What you say is absolutely true and we are in total agreement. One definately > > needs to understand your point that changing the PFE could indirectly change > > the PFC as well. > > > > But I stand by my statement. Yes, I can share the PBDs since our practice is > > to freeze the PFE among applications. We freeze the PFE because when you > > change it for an application then the PFE becomes application-specific and is > > no longer enterprise-general. > > > > (Needles to say, never ever think about changing the PFC without Powersoft's > > blessing and/or you know what you are doing and are prepared for future > > headaches.) > > > > Regards, > > Al Malin > > > > "Hensel, Russ" wrote: > > > > > You can share the pbl as long as you recompile for each individual app. > > > You cannot share the pbd's. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Because of the way that the pfc pfe are linked to each other > > > changes in the pfe layer can move up into the pfc layer. > > > ( look at w_pfc_master -> w_master -> w_pfc_sheet -> w_sheet and the > > > like ) > > > > > > So if there are no changes that can "climb" back to the pfe and pfc > > > layers it may work, otherwise it will not. > > > > > > We keep one master copy of the pbl's as source, but always regenerate > > > them into the application that they will run with. > > > > > > russ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Al Malin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 9:53 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: PFCSIG re: PFC6.0/Executable Creation - > > > ApplicationTerminalt ed ... Unresolveable external n_msg when linking > > > reference atline 3 in c reate eventof object a_pts > > > > > > We share PB6.5 PFC/PFE among applications too and we haven't had any > > > problems. We > > > believe there is nothing in the architecture that prohibits this. > > > > > > Al Malin, > > > Whirlpool Corp > > > > > > "BRIGHT,NIGEL" wrote: > > > > > > > Sharon, > > > > > > > > >. Seems like you are sharing your PFC/kme objects with another > > > application > > > > >(since you have a corporate level). If so, do you realize that cannot > > > > >share the PFC/kme/PFE PBDs between the two applications? > > > > > > > > Do you have any more detail on why you can`t do this. > > > > We have a number of apps sharing our PFC/CORP/PFE PBDs which have been > > > > working fine for several months. > > > > > > > > Robert, > > > > > > > > > Hi PBers .... > > > > > I just started getting the following message and am at a loss at what's > > > > the > > > > > cause or how to go about debuggin ?? I created the executable > > > successfully > > > > a > > > > > few times during the past few weeks and the only changes have been to > > > > > application specific (PBLs)functionality... > > > > > > > > > > Any Ideas?? > > > > > > > > > > Click on a_pts.exe > > > > > Application Terminated > > > > > Unresolveable external n_msg when linking reference at line 3 in create > > > > > event of object a_pts > > > > > > > > Not knowing the specific dependencies which might be involved; I assume > > > you > > > > tried doing a full rebuild of your app? And that the PBD libraries you > > > are > > > > running against are up to date? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nigel > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOSTED BY IIGG, INC. FOR HELP WITH LIST SERVE COMMANDS, ADDRESS > > A MESSAGE TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WITH THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE: help pfcsig > > SEND ALL OTHER INQUIRES TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOSTED BY IIGG, INC. FOR HELP WITH LIST SERVE COMMANDS, ADDRESS > A MESSAGE TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WITH THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE: help pfcsig > SEND ALL OTHER INQUIRES TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
