RE: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: RE: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:56:12 -0500
Importance: Normal
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,<mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,<mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

> From: Joe Pluta
>
> I'd be interested to know from anybody at IBM whether this is indeed the
> case: do server programs such as the host servers create a *NEW
> AG for each
> request?

Along these lines, is there a unique ID associated with an AG that can be
accessed from an API somewhere?  That way I could run my own tests to see if
OS/400 indeed creates a new AG for each request, as I suspect.

Joe

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Activation groups - named vs. *NEW , Mark Waterbury

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.