RE: CRTDUPOBJ an ILE program

>> *CALLER puts us in the DAG under these scenarios.  I don't 
>>see that as desirable, but perhaps I'm operating under 
>>more obsolete assumptions?
>
>I guess I'm confused now, Buck.  How in the world did the DAG 
>get in the picture?  We were talking about an all ILE 
>environment, *NEW for top level, *CALLER for everything else.  
>Where does the DAG come from?

Hi Joe!

My very first line was: "How about this?  First step into ILE.  Programmer
adds her first subprocedure to an RPG IV program.  There's literally only
one ILE program in the application." 
The DAG comes into play because the entire application is OPM _except_ the
very first RPG IV ILE program.  After all, there's a first program for us
all...

Carrying on the idea of evolutionary change (as opposed to constructing an
all-ILE application from the ground up) I added "Time passes.  Our intrepid
programmer has become comfortable with subprocedures and has written her
first service program.  She hasn't had to touch the top level of the
application; just a dozen programs at different stages throughout the
application."

So now, the entire application is OPM/DAG with the exception of a few
scattered ILE programs and a single supporting service program.  Again,
moving incrementally, creating the first service program in the company.

The picture is one of slow acceptance of ILE, converting individual programs
as maintenance is required.  In such an environment, it seems difficult to
be able to pick good candidates for *NEW/*CALLER.  It seems to me that most
RPG shops are in this position, rather than being all-ILE.  I might be
reading too much into the original question, but it seemed like the original
questioner is in this situation.  OPM programs requiring support of
recursive calls.

Did I make things muddier?
  --buck