Question on parallel processing using the STARTING NEW TASK keyword

[Former Member]

I have the following code in a program on my development system:

call function 'FUNCTION_NAME'
    starting new task ld_taskname
    performing collect_output on end of task
      exporting
        pd_param1       = ld_param1
      tables
        pt_packet       = lt_packet.

You'll notice in the code above I left out the following part of the function call:

DESTINATION IN GROUP group

In my one-server development system the topmost code executes fine, but I'm getting a 'REMOTE FUNCTION CALL ERROR' when I execute this in a multi-server Q&A system.

My question: Is the missing 'DESTINATION' keyword required in order for this technique to work in a multi-server environment or is it optional keyword? I made the assumption that since it worked in my development environment that without the 'DESTINATION' addition the system simply used the current logged on system to start the new processes.

Any input appreciated.

Thanks,

Lee

[Former Member]

Hi Lee,

Just take F1 help on CALL FUNCTION key word and go to the variant

CALL FUNCTION func STARTING NEW TASK task

[DESTINATION {dest|{IN GROUP {group|DEFAULT}}}]

parameter_list

[{PERFORMING subr}|{CALLING meth} ON END OF TASK].

This gives you very clear information about this Key word.

No one would give you better information better than this, i hope

Cheers

Ram

[Former Member]

Hi,

Try adding this line, by using DEFAULT.

call function 'FUNCTION_NAME'
    starting new task ld_taskname
DESTINATION IN GROUP DEFAULT
    performing collect_output on end of task
      exporting
        pd_param1       = ld_param1
      tables
        pt_packet       = lt_packet.

Please do let us know if that helps.

[Former Member]

Hi Vaibhav,

Thanks for the suggestion. It turns out that it was another error totally unrelated to this. So, my takeaway would be that although it does NOT mention this in the documentation, if you leave out the line 'DESTINATION IN GROUP DEFAULT' it still actually does the same thing anyway as if you did put that line in. Interesting stuff.

Thanks again,

Lee