RE: H ActGrp('QILE') vs H ActGrp(*caller)

Scott, thank you for your response.
And I suppose that if everyone had used the recommended /copy books instead
of dragging their feet then all of our programs would be running under
QILE.  I guess the question is do I
1)  encourage them to use the recommended /copy books in all their
programs, as set up a few years back, and now have everything in QILE.
2)  or compromise and change my /copy books to use *caller.

I think I am leaning towards option 2.  We have lots of vendor generated
software, most of which is written in RPG/400 and not RPGLE.  Maybe they
use *CALLER to cohabit with that.

On your service program idea.
If they use system() to do their overrides then that is not a problem since
that is a function of another /copy and not the service program per se.
But if they use a cool little wrapper for, let's say QCAPCMD, and that is
in the service program than you're right, having the service program be in
something other than *CALLER might be a problem.



Rob Berendt

==================
A smart person learns from their mistakes,
but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes.



                    Scott
                    Mildenberger            To:     "'rpg400-l@midrange.com'" 
<rpg400-l@midrange.com>
                    <Smildenber@Washc       cc:
                    orp.com>                Fax to:
                    Sent by:                Subject:     RE: H ActGrp('QILE')  
vs  H ActGrp(*caller)
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi
                    drange.com


                    09/21/2001 08:28
                    AM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






Rob,

Our approach is to compile programs to run in a named activation group such
as QILE and for all service programs to run in *CALLER so they run in the
same activation group as the program that is using them.

Scott Mildenberger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rob@dekko.com [mailto:rob@dekko.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:20 AM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: H ActGrp('QILE') vs H ActGrp(*caller)
>
>
>
> When I first started using a service program I set up some
> default H spec's
> to be copied in using /copy for the programs using the
> service program, and
> for RPGLE programs in general.  In this copy member I have
> the following:
> H ActGrp('QILE')
>
> Some developers have requested that we be able to change this to
> H ActGrp(*CALLER)
> This will help make
> ErrorFlag=system(cmd);
> work better.  In cases where cmd is an OVRDBF.  I know I can
> workaround
> with OVRSCOPE.
>
> Any comments on the ramifications of this change?
>
> The concepts of service programs, subprocedures and the like
> are catching
> on here and I want to do everything I can to not stand in the way.
>
> Who would have thought to document their H specs?  :-)
>
>
> Rob Berendt
>
> ==================
> A smart person learns from their mistakes,
> but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
>
_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.