Re: Pointer problem

It was a design decision from the outset that ILE programs would not "go away" unless they had to. The virtual memory management of the system was so good by that time that it made sense to leave it where it was and allow the memory management to page it out when needed. Certainly it is more efficient - particularly in cases where the program sets on LR. Under the ILE model LR just closes files and sets a flag to say it needs to be reinitialized. So when the program is called again it gets up and running much faster as it doesn't have to be resolved - just reinitialized.

This has the interesting benefit - which I've taken advantage of a couple of times - is that a program object can function as a "service" program. Call it and have the mainline pass you back an array of procedure pointers and you can call the procs any time you like until the AG goes away. Less need for this now that there are APIs to retrieve procedure pointers form a Service program and you can also now delay the "launch" of a service program, but it was useful as a technique for making service routines dynamically loadable.


Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com



On 5-Oct-09, at 1:00 PM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Indeed, as I found out to my surprise while hacking around on what I
understood from David's first message.

I wonder why it works this way. It seems to open another way for an
incorrect program to seem to work "by accident". Perhaps performance?
Concern about address space exhaustion? I know that the storage for a
main procedure is static, but I did not know that it is *that* static
<grin />.