Hmmm.. not quite Paul:
Special other things have to be done, one of which is sourcing from
where the job came from. My memory is rough here but I know we had to
allow special processing if the job came from UCC7 (my memory is
vague here because it was a while ago but in no uncertain terms we
had to figure out the source before passing the job to JES and it was
no mean feat to figure that out as the coding was really hardwired.
Once JES2 & security package got it then thats another ball of wax. I
did not do the coding in that area
and from what I was told it was difficult and the people didn't want
their names associated with it.
My best guess was that the process was no easy feat. I never had to
deal with the "other" code and was happy it was bug free as I would
have had to rewrite it otherwise.
We also had another piece of cody that passed jobs to JES that was
more of pre processor and that was not fun.
In other words I don't think its as simple ass you portray it to be.
Ed
On May 2, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013 10:14:04 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
R.S.
That would mean that the scheduler had its own security and letting
applications near production.
No, not "its own" security. RACF.
Then the finger pointing would start and never end. No Thanks.
Look. If you let people submit jobs outside the scheduler, then
there's
enough security and the scheduler needs no more. You don't let
people submit jobs outside the scheduler, then everyone submits
jobs through the scheduler, and the needed mechanisms must exist.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
