Frank Swarbrick wrote:
I am not a system programmer, but I am certainly trying to control my own destiny. Which is why I am arguing for reasonable standards, or better yet in this case, the ability to name my job what ever I want and not be forced to some silly standard from the 1960's. So you are 100% right about it being a management/political issue. If there is no technical reason for the restriction then it seems to me there is no reason for the restriction at all. Being a new z/OS shop I want things set up in ways that are good for everyone (both systems and applications!), make sense, and not mired in the past. Of course everyone will have their own opinion on what is best on why, but "we've always done it that way" is generally not a good enough reason.
I have personally not put my userid into a job name in nearly 25 years. If I submit a job to compress a PDS, it's called "COMPRESS". That's what makes sense to me.
Before RACF, JES did not keep track of job ownership like it does today. Job/spool security pretty much had to be based on job name. At least, it was the most convenient method available in the 1960s and 1970s. That was a long, long time ago. But, old habits die hard.
(E)JES taught me the "hard" way that a VERY significant number--possibly the vast majority--of JES2/SDSF installations still do job/spool security by job name. And, most of them don't want to invest one iota of extra time to convert from their arcane, jobname-based security scheme to an elegant, modern, ownership-based standard--whether SAF or not. Based on their requirements, we spent (IMHO too much) time adding job name security functionality to make their conversions transparent. I suspect IOF and the others have done similar things.
[Aside: It's truly astonishing how many SDSF ISFPARMS specifications are dedicated to masking all or part of the job name. If you took those away, there would be almost nothing left!]
It was painful adding code to (E)JES to support "security" that seems so fragile and outdated... For a while, I felt like one of those guys developing for MVS 3.8 on Hercules. A time warp! :-)
It's not at all surprising to me that IBM completely dropped support for ISFPARMS with SDSF for JES3 in z/OS 1.10.
-- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [email protected] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
