I think it's Peter's phraseology. "the 100 character restriction is not applied" This sentence has two negatives in it. In math, if might be "not(APF) => not(100 character restriction)" The "100 character restriction" phrase means that the initiator checks for the length of the PARM string when the program is APF authorized and, unless the LONGPARM attribute is also on, does not allow execution (or maybe it truncates it to 100 characters?). Perhaps an easier sentence would be:
"When the jobstep is not to be marked APF-authorized, the initiator does not check the length of the PARM or PARMDD contents to ensure it is less than 100 characters" On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht < [email protected]> wrote: > Peter Relson wrote: > > >>if a program is running in an APF environment but is not itself marked > AC(1), do the PARMDD considerations apply? > > >No. > > >When the jobstep is not to be marked APF-authorized (i.e., the > environment is not APF or the jobstep program is not AC(1) ), the 100 > character restriction is not applied. > > I'm confused. Is your statement not the reverse of below quote? > > From announcement: Preview for z/OS v2.1 I see this note: > > "A new LONGPARM binder attribute is planned to enable APF-authorized > programs to use this new function [PARM DD]. No changes are planned to be > needed for unauthorized programs." > > Groete / Greetings > Elardus Engelbrecht > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
