× 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.


  1.  Home
  2. SECURITY400
  3. August 2001

Re: Authority annoyances, continued...

Doug,

> >The 36 didn't have object level security.
>
> It did, although it was implemented differently than on the S/38 and
AS/400.
> And you had to turn "resource security" on separately from signon
security.
> AFAIK, the whole concept of "authority holders" on the 400 were
implemented to
> ease the transition from 34/36 resource security.  This is because
on the 34/36
> it is common to have non-persistent objects which need to have
authorizations
> retained and applied when the object is recreated.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

I do remember authority holders.... don't like 'em :)

jte

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
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.