× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: NO queries in QGPL please!!
  • From: John Earl <johnearl@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:56:34 -0800

Terry Herrin wrote:
Walden Leverich wrote:
>While I agree that this does not stop users from putting queries in the QGPL
>library, I think the delete approach is too harsh. I'm one that believes
>that the system belongs to the users. We (IT, IS, MIS, DP, whatever) are
>just here to act as enablers for the users.

I agree.  However, as managers of the system we have the right to
impose certain reasonable rules that the users should be required to
follow.  Asking that queries not be placed in QGPL is not an
unreasonable request, in my opinion.

<snip>
If the end goal is to keep QGPL base IBM only, then moving the queries
would definitely accomplish that goal.  I wouldn't count on the users
to stop saving to QGPL though, especially since they know it doesn't
matter if they do so.  One compromise here would be to move the
queries to a library the users cannot access.  A "deleted" query would
not be lost, but the users would have to call and ask that their query
be restored to their work library.  By requiring the user to call and
ask, it would discourage them from using QGPL.  It would also give the
manager the opportunity to remind the user that what he/she did was
wrong.....
<snip>

I submit that both legs of this arguement are off the mark.  If you don't want someone to do something on the AS/400, you secure against that event.  Then it's done, end of hassle.

No new batch processes to manage or monitor.  No confused, angry or hurt users, and no arguement.  If the rules for your system are that no user objects belong in QGPL, then use OS/400's  security to enforce those rules.

The debate about whether to delete or move the queries is a debate about which is the appropriate reactive response.  Better to take preventative action and prohibit users placing objects in the library in the first place by removing their *ADD authority to the library.  The users get immediate feedback, the queries get put somewhere else, and you don't have another IS overhead process to babysit.

JMHO,

jte

--
John Earl Lighthouse Software Inc.
8514 71st NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335
253-858-7388 johnearl@lns400.com

Without Lighthouse Network Security/400, your AS/400 is wide open.
--
 


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.