Raymond, That was my thought as well. It will not have a negative impact on older programs, and will clearly require a change to both the called program, and the caller. Wayne Driscoll Product Developer Western Metal Supply NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Noal Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PARM= Have you ever heard the old adage - "if it ain't broke, .....". Instead of messing around with the PARM= field, how about adding a new one like zPARM= (since these are the days of z/OS, z/VM, z/Linux and (soon to be) z/TPF on our new z/Series processors). Have zPARM= specify a DDNAME, like, zPARM=ZPARMS, then code a "//ZPARMS DD *" file for the job. Now you can have 15PB (random number for the sake of the example) of data for your parameters. Maybe 15PB won't be enough, though, have you seen some of the parameters on an RPM command for Linux or some of the other open system commands? HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS Raymond E. Noal Lab Manager, San Diego Facility Office: (858) 537 - 3268 Cell: (858) 248 - 1172 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:36 PM 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
