×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 29/04/2010, at 4:37 PM, David FOXWELL wrote:
When would it be advisable to explicitly compile a program to run in
the default activation group, particularly when named activation
groups are being used?
Simple answer is NEVER. The only use for the default activation group
is when you want to use RPG IV syntax but have everything else
(mostly) behave like the OPM environment. That is no ILE in which case
I would say what's the point?
Why not systematically compile so that the program runs in the same
group as the caller?
That's what you should generally be doing. One place to start is main
entry programs given either a named activation group or *NEW,
everything called by it as *CALLER. There are a few instances where
certain programs or service programs should be in a private named
activation group.
Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists
http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.