Re: Issues with Adopted Authority

My personal preference is to compile (change) every program to
USRPRF(*OWNER) and have them all owned by the APPOWN user profile. APPOWN
would have *CHG authority to the files/tables.

This way every program adopts the authority needed, rather than depending
on some previously adopted authority from earlier in the call stack.

Charles



On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:24 PM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you are going down this path the routing program I think is the right
direction.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.


On 5/29/2018 3:03 PM, Marc Rauzier wrote:

Le 29/05/2018 à 16:52, Joe Hatchell a écrit :

The call stack is
lost and therefore they have no authority to the objects needed to run
the
program.

I solved a similar issue by writing a program which is invoked in the
routing entry of the batch subsystem in place of QSYS/QCMD program.
The program I wrote does adopt owner authority. In fact, it is a bit more
complex but this is the principle.

Marc

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

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD