remove 65535-limit for arrays according to java method size limitation

Hello,
I've inserted the following problem as pmr71243 and was asked by my contact Mark, to insert a rfe.

Here the problem description and some information out of pmr71243:
I can't find any information about a limitation for the dimension of arrays in a record. So I would like to have an array with 100000 occurences of one character like shown in my sample program down here. Aparently it's working fine only up to 65535 occurences, like you could see in the output of my sample program "hugeRec".

Our suggestion is to remove this limit, because in Jave arrays with 100000 fields are possible.

program hugeRec type BasicProgram(parm1 int, parm2 string){}
hugeInst1 hugeRec1;
hugeInst2 hugeRec2;
function main()
syslib.writestdout(syslib.size(hugeInst1.hugeTab1));
syslib.writestdout(syslib.size(hugeInst2.hugeTab2));
end
end
record hugeRec1
10 hugeTab1 [65535];
15 smallElem char(1);
end
record hugeRec2
10 hugeTab2 [65537];
15 smallElem char(1);
end
And this the output:
65535
1

Here the responses from Mark:
Hi Andreas,
Regarding the above PMR, I am currently assigned to investigate this
issue and I recall a similar behavior as EGL in RBD v7.x conforms
closely to Java specifications when generating the applicable Java code
and there is a Java limitation where a method cannot exceed an 65535
bytes limit ie http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4262078

I recall in that scenario the only workaround was that the associated
artifacts within the EGL functions producing this error had to be broken
up into two or more functions to enable the generated Java methods to
adhere to the restriction. I will therefore check if this is indeed the
same related issue and for any applicable documentation. Unfortunately
if as I suspect this does refer to the same Java issue the only way we
could get development to address this is via an enhancement request
because it would fundamentally be working as designed.

I will let you know what my research finds as soon as possible.
Thanks and Regards
Mark

Hi Andreas,
Regarding the above PMR, it appears my initial indication relating to
this limitation was correct I have also found the following tech note
detailing a similar description ie
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21419348 .

Development therefore suggested to create an enhancement request (RFE)
for your preferred behavior to be included in a future release. However
if its a critical, important issue for you I can try once again to
pursue with them directly via an escalation just let me know?
Thanks and Regards
Mark