Re: Clarification cycle-main or linear-main Re: Is the progam OPM or ILE?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vicki

In ILE procedures in a service program, I am inclined usuallly to send 
the program message to *PGMBDY - this works for many situations, as it 
sends the message to the thing that called the procedure. Yes, there are 
certainly other things to do, but this gets me out of a stack of called 
procedures pretty well.

Not sure if that fits anything you are doing - others with idle time can 
ponder just how this works with OPM calls probably THROUGH an ILE 
wrapper to such procedures.

HTH
Vern

On 10/21/2015 11:37 AM, Vicki Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Instead of saying the program works differently in OPM vs ILE.  I probably should say the behavior is different when called from a cycle-main or linear-main.
>
> The service program uses QMHSNDPM to send a CPF9898 Escape message.
>
> In all the old cycle main programs this works as expected.  The program hard-halts with an inquiry message.
>
> However some of us in the shop are starting to write linear-main programs.  And when QMHSNDPM is issued we do not get the inquiry message.
>
> I've been spending a lot of time reading the manuals and my conclusion was that the cycle main programs are handling the errors like OPM.
> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ssw_ibm_i_71/rzasc/sc092507329.htm%23opmdiff?lang=en
>
> I asked about determining OPM vs ILE because I was assuming if I knew the environment I could either issue the QMHSNDPM differently.
>
> The original service program is a program that checks sql state.  As we moved to more embedded sql folks were getting burned because they weren't always checking the state.
> The service program checks the state and issues the QMHSNDPM when the sqlstate is an error.
> It was inspired from:
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=d2c49b79-5a01-46f7-9a11-b9de0f2b0e02#3b47a829-e864-44db-99c4-653a7547add2
> http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/rpg/unexpected_errors/
>
> This whole exercise leaves me with a lot of questions.  My guess is an awful lot of folks out there rely on hard-halts or crashes even though the code is running in "ILE."
>
> Vicki
>
> > "RPG400-L" <rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 10/16/2015
> > 01:00:02
> > PM:
> > > ----- Message from Vicki Wilson <VWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Thu, 15
> > > Oct 2015 23:13:25 +0000 -----
> > >
> > > To:
> > >
> > > "RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Subject:
> > >
> > > Is the progam OPM or ILE?
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I wrote a generic service program for some error handling.  It works
> > > as expected if calling program is OPM.  It does not behave as desired
> > > if the calling program is ILE - some of us are writing more programs
> > > by declaring MAIN.
> > >
> > > One option is to change the behavior if the calling program is ILE.
> > > How would I determine if the calling program is OPM or ILE?
> > >
> > > If you are curious - I wrote a CHECK_SQL_STATE which uses QMHSNDPM to
> > > issue a CPF9898 when there is an sql error.  Basically folks were
> > > used to seeing a hard-halt on I/O errors and since the CPF9898 wasn't
> > > handled we ended up with an inquiry message RNQ0202.
> > >
> > > Essentially what I am trying to do is re-create a hard-halt in ILE.
> > > Which is sooo wrong.  And definitely not the end game.
> > >
> > > Vic