Re: I hate Activation Groups....

Myself, I have never found a need to use Activation Groups yet.  There
may come a point when I find a need for them and use them, but until then,
I just use the defaults, which generally means I simply ignore them.

I compile with 14 in PDA and use DFTACTGRP(*NO) when I want to link to 
something.

Which is one reason I found this thread very interesting, as it's the only
way I'm actually learning about them 'til I need to use them.

Regards,

Jim Langston

Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!

Buck Calabro wrote:
> I wonder if there are more than a half dozen programmers on this list who
> use named AGs for production work.  By and large, the confusion at my
> workplace over named AGs stems from people trying to use a new gizmo without
> cracking the manual first.
> 
> Named AGs give us granular control over anything that can be scoped to the
> AG and not just the job.  The Big One is file opens with SHARE(*YES).  I
> seriously doubt that anybody is using a named AG to segregate static
> variables from other named AGs!
> 
> Given the simplistic environment that _most_ AS/400 programmers are
> accustomed to (I'm excluding the half-dozen leading edge programmers), it
> seems that using a single named AG will suffice.
> 
> Please, oh please correct me if I'm mistaken...
> 
> Buck Calabro
> Commsoft; Albany, NY
> "Nothing is so firmly believed as
>  that which we least know" -- Michel Montaigne
> Visit the Midrange archives at http://www.midrange.com
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---