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 dependant values that define and designate the workings of >the job "webs". > >Imagine that an important application job abends in the middle of the night. >The application responsible is waked by a telephone from one of the nights >operators asking for instructions. And the instructions involve parm values... > That's the lesser hazard. The greater is that the job runs with a truncated PARM and yields incorrect results, possibly undetected. For that reason, PARMX is probably a good idea. Jobs that have not been tested with long parm can continue to use PARM and produce JCL errors, readily diagonsed, with oversize values.
I might even advocate a new JCL command, "//L EXECU PGM=...", where EXECU invokes the program in the unauthorized state with long PARM allowed. EXEC would continue to operate as it does, respecting the AC= attribute and limiting the PARM to 100 characters. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
