On 4 Jan 2008 13:50:22 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Gil, >We're strictly talking _JCL_-_PARM_ parameters here, where there does exist >a 100-byte length limit imposed by JCL syntax rules. >Passing parameter values from one called _program_ to another called >_program_ is a completely different animal and therefore not subject to the >100-byte limit.
The fine manual used to state the limit was 144 bytes and I normally tested for the maximum length expected by the program and used the parm length. It could get interesting if the parm was of lesser length than expected. This was done in both COBOL and assembler programs. > >Ever since I've learned writing programs in COBOL, Assembler or a few other >languages many years ago, I have always coded a 100-byte storage area to >receive the PARM data area from JCL. That's the way I learnt it because >that's the way the interface was originally designed. And I know exactly >that each of these programs would malfunction in some way or other, if >suddenly someone began passing more than 100 bytes of data to my programs. > >Now back to the originally scheduled discussion ... > >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. > > >Regards, >Ulrich Krueger > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >Of Paul Gilmartin >Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 13:19 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: JCL parms > >On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:15:57 -0800, Ulrich Krueger wrote: > >>You know, guys, as much as I'd like to see the JCL PARM expanded in length, >>I'd hate to see the problems that will arise from it. Face it, how many of >>your programs that process PARM values have a hard-coded 100-byte storage >>area to receive the PARM string into? Just about all of them, I bet. >> >Have you any real data to support your "just about all"? I >have never encountered a problem invoking programs (including >IBM products) from Rexx ATTCHMVS (assembler CALL would be the >same) with PARM>100 chars. Any program which would fail >as you suggest with a long EXEC PARM= would likewise fail >when invoked by CALL or ATTCHMVS; it's intrinsically broken. > >-- gil > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
