Re: Activation Group - Mix - Please check

["Frances Denoncourt" <Frances.Denoncourt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Buck,
Thanks for your help. That was it!  I had it turned upside down: 
713037/BUCK/QPADEV0001/A.
Thanks for re-iterating what you must have said a zillion times: this time in a 
specific term that all of a sudden clicked.

You presumed correctly - no committment control - anywhere. 

My last contract (before going back to perm) is where we did service programs. 
There were several of us contractors and we all HAD to write/use them. It was 
SO cool to learn this stuff, but we never had to worry about OPM....that I know 
of. .. Big THANKS to Bob E and Chris T at 1stam.
And once again...thank you so much Buck.
My boss will be thrilled to know I've quit dragging my heels.
Fran Denoncourt (obviously not related to THE Don D)


>Frances Denoncourt wrote:

>> How does being in different activation groups
>> affect accessing the same file in the same
>> submitted job?

>A submitted job is a new job.  No two jobs share a single activation
>group.  Think of an activation group as a subset of a single job, so
>you could have 10 jobs all running in their own separate activation
>group A.  If it helps any, think of an activation group as being
>qualified by the job, so rather than think of AG(A), think of it as
>713037/BUCK/QPADEV0001/A.

>> In the future: If these were interactive jobs and we
>> bounced around through the OPM programs in the
>> menu system and occasionally got to ILE programs
>> that were in their own activation group and accessed
>> the same files (same logicals), would I be creating a mess?

>I can't speak for the specifics of your programs, but I have mixed OPM
>and ILE and do not have any issues with updates.  I _would_ caution
>you to call your 'gateway' CL programs (the ones in *NEW) and don't
>call the RPG programs (the ones in *CALLER) directly, or your service
>programs will end up running in the default AG, and that would be
>ugly.

>I didn't see any mention of commitment control, so I guess it's safe
>enough to presume that you don't have CC on these files?
 > --buck