-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Chris Craddock
Skickat: den 3 november 2009 07:39
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
You and I have diametrically opposed perspectives of
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
Tsk, tsk. I think You should leave this matter to more persons with
more knowledge. You see, this is a complicated matter, which You
will maybe grasp when You have got some experience.
And just how does this poorly
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För P S
Skickat: den 3 november 2009 15:56
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Berg
thomas.b
In d173ec266418d84395b4b89759d861d403cf9...@usmdlmdowx025.dow.com, on
11/02/2009
at 05:21 PM, van der Grijn, Bart (B) bvandergr...@dow.com said:
As far as I'm concerned everyone has the right to use whatever reply
prefix they want
There is an Internet convention to use re: in replies,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Berg
thomas.b...@swedbank.se wrote:
Tsk, tsk. I think You should leave this matter to more
persons with
more knowledge. You see, this is a complicated matter,
which
If the current JCL PARM format change from HW + 0-100 bytes
to HW + 100 bytes + FW for the new long parm + 0-??? bytes long parm,
are there any backward compatibility problems ?
Regards,
Thomas Berg
__
Thomas Berg Specialist IT-U SWEDBANK
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:40:44 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
If the current JCL PARM format change from HW + 0-100 bytes
to HW + 100 bytes + FW for the new long parm + 0-??? bytes long parm,
are there any backward compatibility problems ?
There would be a lateral compatibility problem, in that the
parm
-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Paul Gilmartin
Skickat: den 2 november 2009 17:50
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:40:44 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
If the current JCL PARM format
On 2 Nov 2009 09:19:45 -0800, thomas.b...@swedbank.se (Thomas Berg)
wrote:
As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
longer parms than 100 bytes, among them IBM module apparently,
that's the problem that needs to be solved.
So we cannot avoid a somewhat ugly change of the JCL
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Berg
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:15 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: SV: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
But obviously not a *backward* compatibility
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:14:38 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
But obviously not a *backward* compatibility problem ?
And the main problem here, as I have understood the
discussion, is the limit of 100 bytes through JCL PARM.
And that is sort of another format as I see it.
As the problem is (old?)
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Tom Marchant
Skickat: den 2 november 2009 18:42
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:14:38 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För McKown, John
Skickat: den 2 november 2009 18:38
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:38:25 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
How about just agreeing that the HW pointed to my R1 can range in value from 0
to +32,767.
In fact, at least one IBM program (I just tested it) works quite well with
a PARM string length of 65,635 in the HW.
And, in the new JCL PARMX
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Paul Gilmartin
Skickat: den 2 november 2009 19:23
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:57:49 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:45:43 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
Well, the caos is not primarily feared based on API format. I was thinking
of Job JCLs that production planners, those who restart and corrects jobs,
application programmers/designers etc; all those who deals with parms that
have application
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
snip
I might even advocate a new JCL command
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Paul Gilmartin
Skickat: den 2 november 2009 20:56
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: SV: An Alternative Modest PARM Proposal
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:45:43 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:02:26 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
I might even advocate a new JCL command, //L EXECU PGM=...,
where EXECU invokes the program in the unauthorized
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:16:42 +0100, Thomas Berg wrote:
*BUT*, we still we have the problem of backward incompatibility
regardless of the input format...
Not if the PARM is stored in memory the same way it is today: A fullword
parameter address with the high order bit set to 1. That word points
At 18:14 +0100 on 11/02/2009, Thomas Berg wrote about SV: SV: An
Alternative Modest PARM Proposal:
As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
longer parms than 100 bytes, among them IBM module apparently,
that's the problem that needs to be solved.
Not exactly on the IBM
My apologies if this has been discussed in the past, but as someone that
groups his IBM-Main inbox by Subject I want to point out the following:
http://www.trilithium.com/johan/2005/06/re-outlook/
As far as I'm concerned everyone has the right to use whatever reply
prefix they want and I don't
22 matches
Mail list logo
