(X-posted to RPG400-L)

There have been a number of threads here in recent months concerning the fact that PCML is far less useful than it could be because it fails to include a number of valid native data types (such as dates).

In recent years the compiler folks have taken the initiative to generate PCML as a file - or imbedded into the program object. This offered many possibilities for tool builders and others to be able to perform a modicum of introspection against programs and procedures to discover the number and types of parameters that they required. Sadly the lack of full native data type support renders this almost useless for such purposes.

PCML is no longer just used for Java, and already supports constructs such as structures which Java does not directly support. So why continue to restrict it to data types that Java directly supports? PCML has the potential to be so much more than simply a parameter definition mechanism for Java interfaces if only the "missing" data types were added to the PCML definition.

For some years now I've been trying to find out who in IBM "owns" the PCML definition in order to be able to request such enhancements. A friend in IBM has finally been able to track down the fact that the team that "owns" PCML accept requests for enhancements via this forum:


If like me you would like to see some enhancements made to PCML then please make your voice heard on this site.

Jon Paris


This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page