RE: DFTACTGRP(*NO) ACTGRP(*NEW)

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Buck Calabro
>
> 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...

While the original question in this thread had to do with recursive calls,
the question we've all been working with was Mike McKinney's question:

"Any danger in creating all RPGLE programs with DFTACTGRP(*NO)
ACTGRP(*NEW)?"

And I personally have been answering based on a shop that made the move to
ILE.  Since this can largely be automated and there are so few reasons that
a program will not convert, I find mixed-mode shops to be the exception
rather than the norm.  I just did an ICT PollCast, and of 30 responders,
only 5 said they had an even mix of ILE and RPG.  17 were ILE or mostly ILE,
while 3 were mostly OPM.  1 poor soul was pure OPM.  And 4 don't use RPG
<grin>.


> It seems to me that most
> RPG shops are in this position, rather than being all-ILE.

I think mixed-mode shops are accidents waiting to happen, for the reasons
you describe.  The number of possible problems far outweigh the minimal
investment in conversion from OPM to ILE, IN MOST CASES.  If a shop has
valid technical reasons for not being able to move to ILE, then that shop is
living on borrowed time anyway, IMHO.  I will happily withdraw my comment
when it comes to those shops, and will also stay as far away from them as is
humanly possible.


> 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.

Nope.  You made your position clear.  As I hope I've explained, I was
talking about an ILE shop, not a mixed-mode shop.