Re: Activation group vs Procedure

["Nelson C. Smith" <ncsmith@xxxxxxxx>]

If you WANT recursion, *NEW works well.  Just a little more overhead opening
up the activation group.  Another nice thing is when all the programs in
this *NEW activation group end, the activation group cleans up behind
itself.  It's the only one that does, I think.

-----Original Message-----
From: HwaRangRon@aol.com <HwaRangRon@aol.com>
To: Midrange-L@midrange.com <Midrange-L@midrange.com>
Date: Saturday, November 20, 1999 12:01 PM
Subject: Activation group vs Procedure


>Reading the manuals seem to raise more questions than they answer.
>
>We currently have a program that presents a browse window over any of 50
>files. Each file is user controlled open, controlled by a code passed to
the
>program. Once the subfile is presented, the user can optionaly enter a
>request to go directly to the maintenance program for that file. Once in a
>maintenance program, the potential exists for the user to request the
browse
>window again and cause a recursion error. Currently to handle this, we call
>the browse window program from a CL program that monitors for the recursion
>error message and calls a clone of the browse window rpg program if
>necessary. We know from analyzing our software, that you can never get more
>than 3 deep, so we have 3 clones of the program. This works, but it is very
>messy!
>
>I thought I would change the browse rpg program into a procedure, since
>procedures are recursive. But then, I came across this in the manual
>QUOTE:
>If you create an ILE RPG program with ACTGRP(*NEW), you can then call the
>program as many times as you want without returning from earlier calls.
With
>each call, there is a new copy of the program. Each new copy will have its
>own data, open its files, etc.. However, you must ensure that there is some
>way to end the calls to 'itself'; otherwise you will just keep creating new
>activation groups and the programs will never return.
>ENDQUOTE
>
>So, my question is "Whats the better way to handle this, procedure or new
>activation group?" As a follow-up, if activation group *NEW, then whats the
>best way to end the calls to itself?
>
>Ron
>
>
>
>+---
>| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
>| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
>| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
>+---
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---