Re: RPG ILE Problems (Activation Groups) -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: RPG ILE Problems (Activation Groups)
From: Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:40:01 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 3/4/2011 3:24 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:

Barbara,

Thanks for the correction...

So having a *SRVPGM run in the DAG via ACTGRP(*CALLER) is a bad idea...

But is it a good/bad/indifferent idea to have a ILE *PGM
[DFTACTGRP(*NO)] run in the DAG [via ACTGRP(*CALLER)]?

I guess I'd put it at indifferent. One possible downside is that once a *CALLER program is called into the DAG, it's static storage will never be released until the job ends. With a named activation group, you can release the static storage by reclaiming the actgrp.

Even having a srvpgm run in the DAG doesn't seem like it's necessarily a bad idea. It only causes a severe problem if it uses files and if RCLRSC is used to close the files.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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.