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

*NEW is a named activation group.  The system just picks the name for you.
I do use it for exactly the circumstances we're talking about because it
pretty much guarantees a unique identifier.  I would use a name if I was
sure that the job would never, never, never have more than one instance at a
time, just because I like human readable names.  I'd have to be real sure,
though. <g>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sims, Ken [mailto:KSIMS@SOUTHERNWINE.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:08 AM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: H ActGrp('QILE') vs H ActGrp(*caller)
>
>
> Hi Joel, et. al. -
>
> >For a service program that you need to release
> >all resources when it ends, *CALLER is a good
> >choice, providing the calling program runs in a
> >named activation group that ends when the program
> >does.  If you have a lot of jobs running in QILE,
> >you don't have the same cleanup options you would
> >with a more restricted activation group.  Depends
> >on your scoping requirements, though.  The important
> >thing is that QILE is only a name for an activation
> >group, it's not a system object.
>
> If you want automatic cleanup, why use a named activation
> group at all???
> Use *NEW for the outermost program and *CALLER for everything
> inside.  When
> the outermost program ends, the system will automatically
> close any files
> that were left open and destroy the activation group.
>
> Personally I *NEVER* use named activation groups.  Getting back to the
> H-spec copy members, I have three ... HNEW, HCALLER, and
> HSRVPGM.  The first
> two are for *PGMs, specifying ACTGRP(*NEW) and
> ACTGRP(*CALLER) respectively.
> The third is for service programs and specifies ACTGRP(*CALLER).
>
> Ken
> Southern Wine and Spirits of Nevada, Inc.
> Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily
> represent the views of
> my employer or anyone in their right mind.
> _______________________________________________