Re: ILE CL vs. OPM CL (was: ILE --OPM)

Yep - agree completely. As others have said, overrides can bite you pretty bad - and sneakily, besides. Of course, one can leave things in the default activation group at first, with not as much problematic stuff - still need probably to cover override issues. And the gain is not as great either. Again, performance benefits don't matter much if all the CL does is start a process - just like SQL optimization on a long-running job is not as important as other things. Opening a can of worms - sorry!

And my numbers are wrong - at least one place says a 5% improvement just by moving to CLLE. That might not be worth it - but down the road, there can be better results, with careful study of the present systems.

Vern

At 08:46 PM 10/28/2007, you wrote:

*** REPLYING TO A POST IN RPG400-L

Vernon Hamberg wrote:
> I think your mileage will vary, but it's generally a good idea to
> move to ILE, even with CL. I read some estimate once, think it was
> either 20% improvement or 20% of the runtime.

Performance aside ... I think moving from OPM CL to ILE CL isn't
necessarily a good idea in all cases.

It's been my experience that the change in environments between the two
language environments is pretty radical ... and programs that work fine
in one environment can often fail miserably in the other.

Depending on how you invoke the CL programs, override behavior in
activation groups can be pretty disruptive.

Clearly it can be programmed for ... but a wholesale conversion from one
to the other is not recommended without careful analysis.

david
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.