Re: Rép. : [SPAM] Re: Service program not using LIBL

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why do you say that requiring a RCLACTGRP means there's something wrong 
with your coding?

Granted, there are other ways to accomplish the same things -- but the 
fact that you choose to use activation groups instead of other 
alternatives shouldn't mean that something is WRONG.  It's just a choice.

In my opinion, if you always use the SAME value for the ACTGRP 
parameter, rather than using the right one for the purpose at hand, 
that's a symptom that indicates that something is wrong with your 
coding.  But using RCLACTGRP?  That doesn't mean anything -- unless of 
course you're using it incorrectly.

If you have an application that consists of 10 programs/srvpgms, and 
these programs need to all be loaded into memory at once, and all 
calling back & forth between each other rapidly, but you need to unload 
them all from memory at certain times of the day...   why not use 
RCLACTGRP to accomplish that?   Assuming you're not doing something 
that's potentially harmful (such as loading programs in the default 
activation group, or reclaiming QILE, or reclaiming *ELIGIBLE) then why 
is it bad coding to use RCLACTGRP?


Christen, Duane J. wrote:
> This is just my opinion, but if you regularly require a RCLRSC or
> RCLACTGRP then there is something wrong with your coding. Personally
> I have never needed to do either in a production process. I could see
> where a program/process may execute once everytime a user signs on or
> enters an application for the first time. In this case I would use a
> *NEW activation group, thus the activation group is reclaimed
> automatically.