On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:42:09 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >At 07:29 -0500 on 10/30/2009, McKown, John wrote about Re: An >Alternative Modest PARM Proposal: > >>Same problem with this as with all others. You have changed the >>interface expected by OLD code. Suppose your old code is coded for >>the current standard. If someone used a long PARM, then your old >>code will fail. Any changes to this must keep the current interface >>as it currently is. > >OK. The current standard is a single FW (with the high bit set) >pointing at a HW with length followed by 0-100 bytes of data (the FW >being pointed to by R1). > >Make the new method a 2 FW Parm list with FW 1 pointing at the old >100 character PARM and FW 2 (which is End of Parmlist flagged) >pointing at the new Long Parm. The only GOTHCHA with an old style >program is if it gets paranoid and actually checked the >end-of-parmlist flag on the single FW it expects to be passed to it. > >BTW: There are a number of IBM utilities that ALREADY check the >length of their Parmlist since they support being launched by JCL >with a PARM and being CALLED with a real muli-parm parmlist (the 2nd >and subsequent parms often being DDN overrides). > Therefore, you should understand very well why this won't work. Such utilities will misinterpret the Long Parm as a DDN override list.
-- 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
