RE: RPG ILE Problems (Activation Groups)

-----Message d'origine-----
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Buck
Envoyé : jeudi 3 mars 2011 16:29
À : rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: RPG ILE Problems (Activation Groups)

On 3/3/2011 5:40 AM, Luis Maldonado wrote:

we have a lot of problems in our system about activation groups.
I wonder if you can help us !!!
I mean we are working with ILE RPG but always compile with

DFTACTGRP(*yes). Now we begin to compile with DFTACTGRP(*NO)
ACTGRP(QILE) and all the OVRDBF and OPNQRY don´t work.

Because we have some ILE RPG that use procedures we need to

compile with DFTACTGRP(*NO) and QILE or *Caller.

Two questions :
1) is a good idea to compile all the programs (CLLE,RPGLE)

of the system with DFTACTGRP(*NO) ACTGRP(*caller) ? Can cause
some problems ?

2) Maybe, It´s better to compile all the programs with

DFTACTGRP(*yes) and only the programs that have procedures
with DFTACTGRP(*NO) ACTGRP(*caller) .

There is no simple, single, correct answer.

First, the behaviour you see is exactly how activation groups
are supposed to work. An activation group isolates overrides
from other activation groups. There is an exception for
overrides in the default AG - they are inherited by other
AGs. When I started with ILE, I kept my CL as OPM and
compiled my RPG as dftactgrp(QILE). Today, I might use my
company name instead of QILE. When I say ILE, I specifically
mean using sub-procedures.

There is more than one right way to move to ILE. One can
compile all ILE programs and service programs into a single
named activation group like QILE, one can compile the top
level programs into a named AG and all child programs called
from the top level (including service
programs) actgrp(*caller). These are two common conventions;
there are more right ways to go about it.

There is a wrong way though. Compiling your ILE programs
actgrp(*caller) and then calling them from the default
activation group will lead to problems. I strongly advise
against this.