I vote for doing it - but not 32767 - maybe 1022 or something like that. I have found that the limitations of PARM are hit by compiler invocations, especially as the options became verbose over the years.
If you pre announce it with the next release of z/OS, then people will be forewarned. Just like ISAM. And IMBED/REPLICATE. Later, Ray -- M. Ray Mullins Roseville, CA, USA http://www.catherdersoftware.com/ http://www.mrmullins.big-bear-city.ca.us/ http://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/ > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Relson > Sent: Thursday 12 May 2005 14:36 > To: [email protected] > Subject: PARM= > > We all know and love (well, at least know) that the > limitation in JCL for PARM= is 100 total characters. We are > thinking (again) about expanding this, and would like to hear > your thoughts. > > Some of the possibilities include > - just extending, in JCL processing, so that the target > routine gets what it does today (halfword length followed by > string, only the string would potentially be >100). This is > obviously the nicest from the target routine's perspective if > it can handle the extended length > - a service that the target routine can call to "give me my > parameters". > Obviously the target routine would have to change in order to > utilize that service, and likely would have to dual-path for > systems that do not have the service > > One choice that proved not feasible was using a second parameter. > Various utilities already take advantage of the "known" > structure and pass additional data as additional parameters. > > Some of the potential problems an existing target routine > might have with an extended length parameter are > - It provided an area via DS of 100 characters, "knowing" > that the limit was 100, and then did an EX (execute) of an > MVC to move the parameter string, using the length in the > halfword. Unfortunately, if the length is (for example), 256, > this would overlay the next 156 bytes > - It did some operation (MVC, TRT, whatever) that is limited > to 256 characters which works fine when the limit is 100, but > if the routine was passed 257 characters of data, it might > process that as 257 mod 256 characters in some ways. > > What do you think? > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
