(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.