On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 09:53 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > > Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) > > Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:50 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > Subject: Re: instream data > > > > In <listserv%201006252231432049.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 06/25/2010 > > at 10:31 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> said: > > > > >Wouldn't it be great if the C/I could run shell scripts > > >(or Rexx, or Perl or ...)? > > > > No; it would be a serious integrity breach. > > Pardon my immense ignorance, but how would such an obviously useful > extension be a "serious integrity breach"? I just do not see the > connection. A looping Rexx script submitting infinite new jobs would be > just as much of an annoyance as a shell or perl script doing the same > thing, but neither rises to the level of "integrity breach" as far as I > can see; punishable programmer stupidity, yes, but not "integrity > breach". > > Please explain. > > Peter >
I am also quite curious as to why/how this would be a breach of integrity. The closest that I have come up with is if the script were allowed to do things such as open/read/write a standard file WHILE EXECUTING AS PART OF THE CONVERTER/INTERPRETER. That might allow improper file access if the initiator is running RACF trusted or with a high security ID. So I guess that I would like the ability to run a special purpose scripting language to enhance JCL creation. Or looping, how I would like some looping at times! -- John McKown Maranatha! <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
