> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [On Behalf Of P S > > Well, I'm showing my RACF ignorance in a big way, obviously! That > doesn't bother me, I can take it. > > The issue is code that currently generates some data objects (they're > all small) and caches them in HFS. Someone said, "They should be in > RACF". So a corollary question is, "Does RACF allow definition of > arbitrary objects ([email protected] -- yes, > 8 bytes) and then > allow access control over them? My reading suggests that it doesn't, > but I haven't gotten very far.
Check the RACF Macros and Interfaces manual, Appendix C, for the FACILITY class (as an example): http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ICHZA380/C.0 Refer to the description of the parms for ICHERCDE in the same manual: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ICHZA380/1.1 Note that you may also define your own resource class(es), either statically (the "old" way) or dynamically (the "new, easier" way). > If it does, then the question is, "So, if these objects are accessed > frequently, is it better performance-wise to ask RACF for access, or > to read them from disk?" (Yes, this skips the question of whether just > asking "Mother May I" is sufficient for this purpose, but let's assume > it is.) I can't say; I've never perceived a need to measure the difference. But for times when authorization to a resource needs to be checked, well, "that's what RACF does". -jc- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
