My mistake. We always set LPARname==SYSNAME. On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 16:22 -0600, Steve Comstock wrote: > On 6/23/2011 3:33 PM, John McKown wrote: > > Just to jump in, a COBOL program can invoke a REXX program, which can access > > SYSVARs and MVSVARs. > > Yes, but the OP wanted "the LPAR name", which isn't available > through those, as far as I can tell, although I'm not sure what > he really wanted or if that was just tossed out there. > > > > > -- > > John McKown > > Maranatha!<>< > > Sent from my Vibrant Android phone. > > > > On Jun 23, 2011 11:40 AM, "Haynes, Stan"<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I feel like I should expand on my query. > > > > We use CA-TSS as our security server. All datasets are protected. In this > > case, the appl owners *need* to do a sec check to control the type of > > access. In their own words: > > "an application makes a call to our business team (app). We then grant > > access via their HLQ, server packet name and access level - allowing us some > > degree of control over the calling config design ... Some of our servers are > > amalgamated, others are more specific". > > > > And there's also interest in logging the jobid of the caller of this program > > (STCnumber if CICS, otherwise the batch jobid). > > > > Sysprogs here believe this security check can be removed in favor of more > > traditional security permissions but that would require our DBAs to do > > things differently. > > > > Right now the appl is calling a 24-bit assembler program for the TIOT/DSN > > lookup, and one look at the code revealed they're not using DSECT > > definitions enough. The appl folks are COBOL people, and as such want to > > ditch the assembler program in favor of a COBOL routine they found on the > > net. > > > > While the odds of seeing the TIOT (and other system-management control > > blocks) change are slim, they're not nil either. An application program that > > uses static mapping of control blocks (in COBOL to boot!) could find itself > > in a broken state because of new z/OS maint introducing a control block > > change, and then our ability to deploy and maintain z/OS can be undermined. > > If the appl is broken, what's the fix ? Appl programming change or software > > rollback ? Sysprogs don't want to be held hostage by the appl programmers. > > > > So I'm hearing "assembler code using established APIs like GETDSAB". > > Comments, anyone ? > > > > > > Stan > > > > mailto:[email protected] > > (613) 941-8091 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Beha... > > > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:01:56 -0400, Andy Coburn<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >>> I question Walt's... >
-- John McKown Maranatha! <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
