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

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ken,

I don't have much to add to what you're saying :)  I just wanted to
say, FWIW, I agree with you completely.   I almost always use a
combination of *NEW and *CALLER.

I have to admit that I've yet to be given an assignment where using
a 'named' activation group made sense.  (And yes, by 'named' I mean
the one that I name myself, which is what people always mean when
they say 'named activation group'.  I've never heard of *NEW being
called 'named' until today)

RCLACTGRP is actually quite awkward, since you not only have to have
a seperate program to run the reclaim, but it has to be in a seperate
activation group.

The CEETREC API is a little better.  But still isn't as robust,
convienient or easy to maintain as using *NEW.



On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Sims, Ken wrote:

> Hi Phil -
>
> >What's wrong with doing RCLACTGRP(user-named actgrp)?
>
> 1. I agree with those who think that RCLACTGRP in a production environment
> is an accident looking for a place to happen.
>
> 2. I would have to have a CL shell for the RCTACTGRP command.
>
> 3. If I didn't *ALWAYS* reclaim the activation group, then I would have to
> make sure that I use unique activation group names to not reclaim something
> that shouldn't be (see #1).
>
> 4. The operating system will take care of all of these things for me
> automatically with *NEW without the need for a CL shell, without the need to
> come up with activation group names, and without the risk of reclaiming
> something that shouldn't be reclaimed.
>
> 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.
>