× 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.



Like I pointed out recently - some bloke here changed the BPCS menu program
to be owned by SSA and *owner so that affects every program below it.

Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



                    "Simon Coulter"
                    <shc@flybynight.com       To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
                    .au>                      cc:
                    Sent by:                  Fax to:
                    midrange-l-admin@mi       Subject:     Re: Service program 
authority adoption
                    drange.com


                    01/24/2002 10:38 PM
                    Please respond to
                    midrange-l







Hello David,

You wrote:
>In general yes, unless the program specifies useadpaut(*no).

USEADPAUT(*NO) controls what happens above the caller.  As in:

           PGMA  -- adopts QGOD
             calls PGMB which says USEADPT(*NO) therefore doesn't have QGOD
                   (unless it adopts QGOD itself)

The system does support the ability to stop called programs from adopting
via a propogate authority attribute but Rochester haven't seen fit to
expose that.  I keep asking for it but I guess I'm alone.  You see my view
is that it is the caller's responsibility to determine whether inherited
authority is available to the callee, NOT the callee's job to say thanks
for the God-like rights but I really don't want them.  That way programs
that call exit programs can ensure that the exit program runs only with
the user's real authorities.  The current mechanism is simply
arse-backwards.

>There are some exceptions that can be significant, like triggers,
>which end adoption.

I didn't know that.  I can understand a trigger not inheriting adopted
authority from earlier in the stack but I doubt they stop the trigger
itself from adopting authority via USRPRF(*OWNER).  Hmm, I can feel an
investigation coming on -- it'll have to wait a bit though ... I'm busy!

Regards,
Simon Coulter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists
   http://www.flybynight.com.au/

   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175   mailto: shc@flybynight.com.au   \ /
                                                             X
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.







As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


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.