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

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.