|
>I GREATLY prefer the use of *NEW/*CALLER. It is MUCH easier to manage. > You won't see ANY performance enhancement to using named groups unless > you're using *NEW in a silly fashion. Agreed, silly is bad. > It takes the same amount of time to create an activation group, whether > you're using *NEW or whether you're using a named group. The *NEW method > has the big advantage that it is automatically cleaned up... a bug in > a program won't (likely) prevent it from being reclaimed. You won't have > to worry about two applications on your system "accidentally" using the > same activation group name if you use *NEW. "automatically cleaned up" comes at a price. If the program is called again, the program will incur the overhead of creating another activation group. This is the difference. No free lunch. Buck's example (*NEW only at the menu/top level) is a good usage. No unnecessary AG creation or a *CALLER pgm that's called from the default activation group. Of course either would be silly, but like bugs, it can happen. Those who aren't sure about which pgm to make *NEW/*CALLER would probably do fine with the non-default activation group "default" (QILE). Keith
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.