RE: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW

["Tyler, Matt" <mattt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,
        We all appreciate the new knowledge.  Keep up the good work.


Thank you,
Matt Tyler
Mattt@wincofoods.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 14:02
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW

Folks, I just found an excellent reason for using named activation groups as
opposed to *NEW or *CALLER (my mainstays) in certain situations.

If you have an API program (be it a server program or an exit program)
called by an IBM server and you use either *CALLER or *NEW, you probably
won't be able to have persistence from one call to the next.  So if you want
to store persistent data in a program (by not setting on LR), you'll need a
named activation group in order to keep that program active between calls.

I refuse to acknowledge how long this took to figure out <grin>.

Joe

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.