Re: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW

["Brad Stone" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good job, Joe!  :)  Me thinks you've been spending too much
time with the big J.  :)  You blow my mind with your
knowledge of that stuff.  But yes, persistence is a great
reason to use named AGs.  But, in many cases *CALLER may
work as well depending on the call level, etc.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:02:29 -0500
 "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> wrote:
> Folks, I just found an excellent reason for using named
> activation groups as
> opposed to *NEW or *CALLER (my mainstays) in certain
> situations.
>
> If you have an API program (be it a server program or an
> exit program)
> called by an IBM server and you use either *CALLER or
> *NEW, you probably
> won't be able to have persistence from one call to the
> next.  So if you want
> to store persistent data in a program (by not setting on
> LR), you'll need a
> named activation group in order to keep that program
> active between calls.
>
> I refuse to acknowledge how long this took to figure out
> <grin>.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the
> archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>

Bradley V. Stone
BVS.Tools
www.bvstools.com