Re: OPM *INLR and ILE actGrp

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay,

Essentially, setting on LR in OPM destroys the current program 
activation.   Destroying an activation group, similarly, destroys a 
program activation.   So in that respect they are the same.

But:

Activation groups can be a GROUP of activated objects (programs and 
service programs) rather than just one, so you can clean up "all your 
junk" at once.

Activation groups can have memory allocations, commitment scopes, and 
file overrides scoped to them.

Activation groups apply to all ILE languages (whereas LR only exists in 
RPG.)

Activation groups support teraspace storage and (potentially) 
multi-threaded access.


I could go on... so yes, there are some similarities, and that's a handy 
way to think of things.  But activation groups can do far, far more.

On 8/15/24 10:43 AM, Jay Vaughn wrote:
> Would anyone agree or disagree that *INLR is very much like actGrp's?
>
> Instead of turning *INLR on or off to manage persistent memory storage and
> files opened, actGrp's pretty much do the same thing.
>
> What are any real big differences between the two?
>
> in a call stack...
>
> OPM - pgm1 (inlr=on), pgm2 (inlr=off), pgm3 (inlr=off), pgm4 (inlr=on)
> really isnt any different than...
> ILE - pgm 1 actgrp(*new), pgm2 actgrp('named'), pgm3 ( 'named'), pgm4
> actgrp(*new)
>
> for the opm, on the next call, the pgms with inlr=off will still have their
> files/memory still resident, and the others will not
> for the ile, on the next call, the pgms with actgrp('named') will still
> have their files/memory still resident, and the others will not.
>
> yes?  no?
>
> thanks
>
> Jay