[Default] On 27 Feb 2017 07:44:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Bill Woodger) wrote:
>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. When did it change to 100? I always tested for 144 as a maximum or whatever I was expecting going back to MVT. Clark Morris > >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
