Personally, I don't use PCML, I use the standard toolbox classes.
The nice thing about PCML is it can be generated during the RPG programs compile which can save a ton of time.I can remember if this is available, but once you have the PCML one could autogenerate the Java objects needed to call the RPG programs.
But I don't know of any seven-parameter limitations except on service
programs. Most all of my development is done in service programs so this affects me a lot. Do you have an idea of why this limitation is there?
On the other hand, dates are still tough, though not impossible: you define
the parameter as an array of bytes and then use the DateTimeConverter class to convert the date to a usable value. These are the things that should be built into the base offering as date data types are becoming more common (vs. int fields to hold dates).
Anyway, I suspect your problems arise from your application architecture;
your service programs have lots of small methods that return values, much like getters in an OO environment. Nope. I think getters/setters in RPG (which are usually around a file) are a waste of time 95% of the time. I was simply using PCML to call RPG service programs that encapsulate business logic (and of course multiple file access). There is another thread where I commented on this so I wont go into details here (http://tinyurl.com/fl88p).
Me, I pass data structures between programs; it works much better.
And if I was the one on both ends of the programming I could compose the RPG to use DS's but that isn't always the case, and to tell somebody that they need to modify their already modular *SRVPGM because of a PCML limitation is a little embarrassing on the part of Java (sure it isn't Java and instead PCML, but guess who gets the blame). Thanks for you thoughts Joe, Aaron Bartell http://mowyourlawn.com -----Original Message----- From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:41 PM To: 'Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries' Subject: Re: [WEB400] PHP to RPG - "tight" integration Personally, I don't use PCML, I use the standard toolbox classes. But I don't know of any seven-parameter limitations except on service programs. On the other hand, dates are still tough, though not impossible: you define the parameter as an array of bytes and then use the DateTimeConverter class to convert the date to a usable value. Anyway, I suspect your problems arise from your application architecture; your service programs have lots of small methods that return values, much like getters in an OO environment. Me, I pass data structures between programs; it works much better. I never have to worry about having too many parameters, and I can pass structures inside of structures with no problems. Joe
From: albartell The last I used Java's integration to RPG, specifically PCML, I made some good progress but then was stopped by a brick wall. The brick wall was a limitation on the number of parameters that could be passed (i.e. seven parms max at the time), the lack of being able to pass date data types, and the lack of being able to pass back anything other than an int in the passback parm of an RPG sub procedure.
-- This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400 or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.