Re: Call in ILERPG response time slow

[Vanya Jovic <jovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Pete Hall wrote:

> 
> At 07:26 10/22/1998 , Steven Easton wrote:
> >My question is, how can I improve response time without converting to
> >CALLB.  I write many small programs instead of 1 large program.  The CALLB
> >adds extra programming overhead that I would like to avoid.

        There's something else other than just ILE drawback, and we don't
 have enough information to guess what. 14 seconds is way to much time.
Are you sure that conversion went smoothly, that everythink was put in right
place; new indexes... in the world of activation groups, overides and
commitment control have new meaning, new scopes, new control boundaries... 
Try to folow job log, program stack, open files, AGs... while running that
program, it may give you some idea. I.M.N.S.H.O., ILE is not just a new
programming technique. Rather, it's a new approach to application and
program design.



>A word of warning though: Don't use ACTGRP(*CALLER)  if you're
>executing the program by calling it from an OPM program and using bound
>calls. Results will be "unpredictable". 

        Pete, 

        What did you mean by this. When ILE program runs in DAG2 results
are very "predictable" and defined. Only "unwellcome" thing, I can think
of, is that you cannot reclaim memory in DAG2 after ILE program is done.
(but you can reset program and close ODPs). Don't start warr about Cobol
run unit, pls. :)))))

Take care,

Vanya



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---