|
Andy, Thanks for the info - I thought it was doable, but I've never had the need to deal with security much. Yes, you're right. I've been complaining about production librarys in the syslibl since i've been here, but no one is willing to listen. Only one person here who even understands the concept, and it was her decision back in thier s/38 days to do it that way in the first place. Plus, changing this would be a mini to mid sized project in itself - research wise - and my plate is full as it is. Thanks again, Rick ------original message-------- Rick, What you're describing sounds like a reasonable compromise. If your client were to compile a small CLP with appropriate authority which did: CHGSYSLIBL LIB(LIBRARY1) OPTION(*REMOVE) CHGSYSLIBL LIB(LIBRARY2) OPTION(*REMOVE) Then you could go ahead and add the appropriate libraries to the user portion of the library list and proceed with testing. This would still allow you to access production data with your own programs, but if they're okay with that, it should work. Alternatively, you could gather a consensus of opinion as to what a poor architecture this is, and try to shame them into overcoming their reluctance. If they're doing development on the system, they really should consider changing. Regards, Andy Nolen-Parkhouse
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.