In <45fcfbbb8bc8eb4a9dfedc6fa2cc7fdf2dbed...@sdkmbx02.emea.sas.com>,
on 11/18/2012
at 01:55 AM, Lindy Mayfield <lindy.mayfi...@sas.com> said:
>May I infer, then, that you are talking about "serious" issues
>where the program better get it right the first time, especially
>when updating these control blocks (1) that are being discussed
>at the moment.
The issues are serious in general, especially when updating control
blocks. However, the Devil is in the details.
>And simple interfaces to storage, such as Rexx need have
>different requirements, thus because of simple functions to read
>storage be exempt from this discussion?
The requirements don't change; what changes is your ability to satisfy
the requirements.
The case under discussion is one where an unauthorized program needs
to read a control block but not update it, and where garbage output is
acceptable. Change those constraints and the requirements change; it's
at that point that the term "Russian Roulette" becomes relevant.
>(1) Who can update these control blocks? I think from reading this
>only z/OS can. (or should, you guys do what you want, seems like,
>then justify it like I just did.)
Again, the Devil is in the details, but, in general:
1. Don't do it if you don't understand the rules.
2. Follow the rules if you can,
3. Don't break the rules unless you understand the possible[1]
consequences and can live with them.
[1] All of the consequences, not just best case or most likely.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
