is this the correct understanding for commitment control running in ILE?

Given the following ILE program calling scenario, is this an accurate
version of how commitment control will behave?



pgmA actgrp(*new)

monitor;

calls pgmB actgrp(*caller) // both running in *NEW now (along
with all other downstream calls)

on-error;

rolbk(e) or exec sql rollback (same results either way you specify
rollback)

endmon;



*NEW is the commitment control atomic boundary.



In this scenario, the pgmB makes calls to other *caller pgms with RLA files
under commitment control as well as SQL tables under commitment control.



When pgmA is called, the commitment boundary starts for *NEW.



Any sql stored procedures that are issuing inserts/updates/deletes that
contain WITH UR (meaning, use this lock level within a commitment control
boundary) are in play.



Any *caller pgms with COMMITMENT CONTROL (cobol) or COMMIT (RPG) that are
defined for a file, can issue writes/updates/deletes to be considered for
CC within this call scope of *NEW.



IF there is a critical error, the monitor in pgmA catches it and the
rollback occurs – everything is rolled back, pgm ends as well as the *NEW
actgrp commitment control boundary.



If pgmA finishes successfully, a commit does not even have to be specified,
as *NEW defines the commitment boundary.

When pgmA ends, so does the *NEW actgrp boundary (as well as the commitment
control boundary). – all i/o’s are committed.





tia



jay