On Monday, 27 February 2017 15:00:03 UTC+1, Allan Staller wrote: > No. IBM chose not to break thousands upon thousands of programs that were > perfectly happy with 100 byte parm fields, provided via JCL. > They added a new mechanism for those program, where 100 bytes was not > sufficient. >
Unless you change the JCL to use PARMDD on the EXEC instead of PARM on the EXEC, nothing changes. If you make that change for no purpose, and then the program is doing something which relies on there being 100 bytes of data as a maximum implicitly, then you may have a problem. But how is that IBM's fault? No-one forced the JCL change. If you don't change the JCL, the program expecting a maximum of 100 bytes and never needing any more than that will work as designed for the next... well, forever. Have you got an example from one of the thousands and thousands of breaks caused? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
