Re: PCML Enhancement requests

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon

Sounds like something for the ISV Advisory requirements, and maybe the 
COMMON requirements process, as well.

Vern

Jon Paris wrote:
> (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:
>
>   http://www-912.ibm.com/j_dir/JTOpen.nsf/%28$All%29?OpenView
>
> If like me you would like to see some enhancements made to PCML then  
> please make your voice heard on this site.
>
>
> Jon Paris
>
> www.Partner400.com
> www.SystemiDeveloper.com
>
>
>
>