>can you cite a source for "programs are expected to reserve 100
>bytes for the PARM"?
Here is an excerpt from the JCL Reference:
16.8 PARM Parameter
16.8.1 Syntax
PARM[.procstepname]=subparameter
PARM[.procstepname]=(subparameter,subparameter)
PARM[.procstepname]=('subparameter',subparameter)
PARM[.procstepname]='subparameter,subparameter'
Length: The length of the subparameters passed must not exceed 100
characters:
Including any commas, which are passed to the processing program.
Excluding any enclosing parentheses or apostrophes, which are not
passed.
You're right in that this doesn't explicitly state the program should
reserve 100 bytes but it implicitly says the program can anticipate it
will receive up to 100 bytes (and not more) from an EXEC PARM.
>Shouldn't programs expect possibly to be
>invoked through any of the programming interfaces which have never
>imposed a 100 byte limit?
When talking about utilities, yes I agree and these are the ones that
would have to be rebound to set the proposed attribute *if* they are
taking PARMs and if the PARM can reasonably be longer than 100 bytes.
IEBGENER would not need it, the only valid PARM is 'SDB=xxxxx'. IEBCOPY
accepts more parms but they still easily fit into 100 bytes. Others
like ASMA90, C compiler, etc. would need the attribute.
However, leaving utilities aside, I think that application programs
are designed for a specific environment: MVS Batch, CICS transaction,
IMS transaction, etc. You don't call a day-end-processing batch
program from TSO forground, do you?
Peter Hunkeler
Senior IT Specialist, IBM zSeries Technical Sales Support, Switzerland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
