I've always assumed there was slightly less overhead in running batch
REXX without the TSO TMP, provided you didn't need any TSO commands or
ISPF services - but I suspect this overhead is minimal. I believe you
also avoid the need for several DDs, which in a bizarre case might make
a difference.
We regularly run batch TSO (batch TMP), batch REXX, and batch ISPF from
production batch jobs, which all run under userids with no TSO access
(No TSO Segment and not in SYSUADS).
I can't conceive of any rational reason why a sysadmin or auditor would
want to restrict batch TMP usage. It buys you no power or data access
that could not be derived by other means, except perhaps for the
somewhat dubious ability to execute CLISTs - but everything a CLIST can
do can be better done by REXX.
The reasons for restricting interactive TSO usage have traditionally
been because of the greater system overhead of running tasks in an
interactive environment, and perhaps because of the fear that the
relative ease of interactive searching and browsing would potentially
make it easier for someone logged on to TSO to stumble across and misuse
sensitive data if someone had failed to adequately protect it. Use of
TMP non-interactively in batch has not raised these issues.
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:00:05 -0500, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Try IRXJCL on for size, see if it fits your needs (watch the line wrap):
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ikj4a370/12.2.1?SHELF=IKJ4BK70.bks&DT=20060626210253&CASE=
Wrap fixed, I believe. Get a better mailer. Often, when faced with this
problem, I trim the QUERY_STRING:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ikj4a370/12.2.1
What's the advantage in IRXJCL? I know that when coding an EXEC for greatest
portability, I test it under all of:
o TSO TMP
o Unix shell
o IRXJCL.
... but I don't know who benefits from the last. I suppose it somewhat
verifies compatibility with the API.
I see Walt F. answered in anticipation my question of availability of
TSO TMP when user has no TSO segment. But why is this permitted?
Frequently, sysadmins ask on this list how to preclude a user's
access to Unix System Services. Simple answer: give the user no
OMVS segment, and define no default OMVS segment. But what answer
can be given the sysadmin who wants to preclude a user's access to
the TSO TMP? (Ignoring the question of why any sysadmin feels
compelled to limit access to either. Overzealous auditors?)
-- gil
...
--
Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
