• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Issue with VVSRVPGM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Issue with VVSRVPGM

    Hello,

    We are dealing with double byte characters throughout our application and it has came to our attention that there appears to be a discrepancy between vvIN_utf16 and the utility function it calls vvUtility_decodeUTF16. If you look at the interface definitions below you will see that the maximum alpha field size vvIn_utf16 can pass is 50, I am assuming this is an oversight.

    Code:
         p vvIn_utf16      b                   export                             
         d                 pi         16383c                                      
         d  inField                      50a   const varying options(*varsize)
    Code:
         p vvUtility_decodeUTF16...                                              
         p                 b                   export                            
         d                 pi         16383c                                     
         d   inHex                    65532a   const varying options(*varsize)   
    We are currently invoking vvUtility_decodeUTF16 directly has we have fields larger than 50a.

    Is there any chance we can have a fix please ?

    Thanks
    Last edited by melvig; 07-07-2014, 05:48 AM.

  • #2
    This is not a discrepancy. The parm on the vvUtility_decodeUTF16 procedure refers to actual field content, whereas the parm on vvIn_utf16 refers to a field's literal name. That's consistent with every single VVIN procedure that pulls in a field value from the buffer -- they all assume the field name does not exceed 50 characters.

    So are you saying you have field NAMES in your apps exceeding 50 characters? That would seem a bit unusual.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello Rob,

      Sorry our mistake we had crossed wires internally - thanks for the reply.

      You can mark this as resolved due to stupidity :)

      Comment

      Working...
      X