> Beefing here is just so much f**t gas. Not beefing, Ted, just wishing. And following along someone else's "I wish there was ..." post, adding my 2cents' worth to it. And, I'm well aware of proper channels. However, changes and improvements to the JCL PARM length limit have been discussed for many years, in discussions as well as SHARE, IBM and other "proper channels". At one point in time I was even under the impression that a solution to this would be forthcoming in a future release of z/OS ... well, I'm still wishing, still waiting, still believing in Santa Claus and all I ever get is a lump of coal.
Regards, Ulrich Krueger -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 13:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: JCL parms >If the SET values do not exist in storage anymore at the time of step >execution, perhaps IBM would be so good and consider making them available in >some standard interface / method ... CEEENV or ENVAR, as someone else >suggested, does sound good to me, too. Then make request through proper channels. IBM does not identify requirements through this, or any other, discussion list. Beefing here is just so much f**t gas. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
