Re: SQLCLI problems: Now we know that the QSQCLI activation group is getting purged . . .

On 30-Jan-2012 09:54 , James Lampert wrote:

Michael Ryan wrote:

Looks like are some PTFs out there about something like this...
here's one...
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=nas3722133613cd92d6086256fa9004d1670

I googled QSQCLI activation group.

Hadn't thought of that; thanks for not LMGTFYing me.

I'm guessing that you must have heard about such a malfunction
somewhere, because an OS malfunction requiring a PTF was not something
that had even occurred to me.

Not so much a malfunction of the OS; instead, both a poor definition of *ELIGIBLE and a poorer use of the *ELIGIBLE as the choice by the requester of what should be reclaimed. By its naming, any "eligible" activation group should be reclaimed. With that PTF [and the inclusion of that change in later releases], the QSQCLI ActGrp could still be eligible, but is now explicitly precluded from the eligibility test for *ELIGIBLE. Thus the definition of *ELIGIBLE was vitiated from the original intent for the meaning "not in use"; meaning instead, "if not precluded and not in use". IMO the better design or change in implementation would have been to make a new special value or perhaps change the existing special value *ELIGIBLE to imply "user-state or user-naming not-in-use"; perhaps providing new special values like *SYSELIGIBLE, *USRELIGIBLE, and *ALLELIGIBLE to handle more variety due to the effective loss of function caused by the different [and possibly changing] definition of *ELIGIBLE [each time another ActGrp name is precluded].

Completely lame IMO that there exists a coded exclusion list. If there was legitimate need for any one named activation group to have the capability to be excluded from *ELIGIBLE, then there should either have been a exit to allow the omission or to enable an attribute of the named activation group: "Allow reclaim as *eligible (*YES|*NO|?)".

Regards, Chuck