RE: authority issues with a QS36F file

I wondered about that, too, Booth. We run exclusively in the 36E and create files out the kazoo. The older sets use BLDFILE; the newer ones use CRTPF or SQL-DDL. Never had a problem with User_A not being able to use a file created by User_B.

I looked at the $FBLD program (BLDFILE), but didn't see anything perverse there.

We're at Level 40; we were at level 30 until about 3-4 years ago. At Level 10 there is no security, but Level 30 includes object security. Security is not my forte, but you might look at the QCRTAUT system value. It controls *Public access when an object is created (read the Help). Ours is set to *All; someone may have changed yours to *Exclude or *Use.

Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
--
B&W Wholesale
office: 615-995-7024
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Booth Martin
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: authority issues with a QS36F file

That is a good question. Especially since this application has been
running without trouble since the late 1970s. Recently we went from
security level 10 to security level 30, and I suspect there is the cause
of this new behavior.

Willie J. Moore wrote:

Why can't other users use it? If you are getting a 'Level Check' on the file, then set level check to NO (not good ideal but a workaround). You can also check the option on the 'rebuild'.

William Moore
California Fine Wire, Co
wjmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
805-489-5144

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:43 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: authority issues with a QS36F file

Charles,

All good ideas. The first three would require code modification, which I guess he is loath to spend any more time upgrading S/36 environment stuff.
Number 4 bears some looking into and wouldn't require any code change.


Rob Berendt