Re: DFTACTGRP(*NO) ACTGRP(*CALLER) was RE: More ILE 101

Scott Klement wrote:

> I don't like to use QILE because I'm always paranoid
> that some 3rd party software will leave something
> running in QILE that it assumes won't ever be reclaimed.

Do you (would you) routinely reclaim a named activation group in production?
Under what circumstances would you not let it live for the life of the job?
My point is that most people don't take advantage of AGs: they are _forced_
to pick one because the compiler insists on DFTACTGRP(*NO) if you use
subprocedures.  If they go for the simplest solution, a named AG, they are
pretty much emulating OPM (or trying to, anyway.)  If there's a share, it'll
be for the life of the job, just like the OPM program they are probably
converting from.  I think there are very many more people in a mixed OPM/ILE
environment than there are in ILE-only.

> For that reason, when I'm not using *NEW, I name the
> actgrp after the program that created it.  This way, there's
> no conflicts if I reclaim it.

I'm dense, for sure.  I have never reclaimed an AG in production code.  My
AGs live for the whole job.  I live in a mixed OPM/ILE environment.  I am
extremely interested to understand the scenarios where one would reclaim an
AG (because it's outside my experience and I'd really love to learn
something new!)

> But, I must say, calling ILE from OPM has been rather
> rare for me.  I've been using ILE for 8+ years now, and
> I don't think I've called ILE from OPM more than 20-30
> times.   Usually, a given menu option is all-ILE or
> all-OPM.

We have a user-defined menu system, and I can't imagine how I would be able
to get that done.  Sigh.
  --buck

ps - another good thread!