On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:30:01 -0600, Martin Kline wrote:
>
>Let's take a poll. Suppose for the sake of argument that I had in my posession
>a set of system modifications which allowed specification of EXTPARM, which
>let you specify program parms of up to 32767 characters in length, and that
>you could obtain this modification for a small fee. Who would be interested in
>using it? Who would refuse to use it?
>
Depends on the value of "small".
I'd say 65535 rather than 32767. But either is larger than practically
useful. That would be about 5000.
>What if you could specify in your parmlib the list of programs which could be
>invoked with this parameter? Would you use it then? After all, aren't we really
>talking about a limited number of potential uses at any given site?
>
It would certainly be useful to have one more syntactic extension in
the PARMLIB member:
AC=0 /* Unauthorized programs are relatively harmless. */
NAME=FRED
NAME=JOE
...
>Take it a step further. Suppose IBM supplied this capability with the next z/OS
>release. Also suppose that you could enable or disable the functionality via a
>parmlib value as well as specify the programs that were eligible for use. Would
>you be interested then?
>
We'd need to take a poll at our site; I can't make that decision alone.
But I'd vote yes. But there are tradeoffs. If resources forced a
choice between long PARM and symbol substitution in SYSIN, I'd take
the latter.
-- 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
