On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:32:36 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >This is a theoretical question. I am *not* an Endevor user. I am trying to >solve a *similar* problem and this is the best way to explain it. > >Here's the question: at shops that use Endevor for all compiles, how do you >"lock down" the compilers so that programmers can only run the compilers >under Endevor, not with plain old JCL? What about programmers who might have >"private copies" of the compiler load libraries? > >(More generically, if X is a load module, is it possible to set things up >such that program Y can run X, but PGM=X will never work? How? I have >thought about engineering a rename to a name that JCL will not accept (but >LINK will) but I would just as soon not get that weird; rather do things in >a more supported way.) > What's unsupported? It's pretty well documented what the JCL EXEC statement will accept, but is it documented what LINK will accept? And will "Endevor" (as you call it) accept any names that JCL won't? And what's to prevent an ingenious user's writing a wrapper in Assembler and doing his own LINK?
Perhaps better: Does "Endevor" keep an activity log? Run down and discipline any compiles not appearing in "Endevor"'s log. I've been there. Clients will invent ways to circumvent mandated process and do what they're accustomed to by prior use. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
