In message <[log in to unmask]>, Jim Rogers 
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I have to agree with Arthur on this one.
>
>In this forum we have the bandwidth to pretty much bypass any type of
>security built into a HP3000 environment.    And to see a request posted from
>a YAHOO account asking how to get around security just raises the hackles
>(not sure what a hackle is actually, but you get the point), on the back of my
>neck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackle_%28disambiguation%29

>Information and help within the community is a good thing.   Just have to be
>sure who we are helping the right people.

I doubt Rajesh is a black hat :-)

At a guess, he's working for one of the offshore (probably Indian) 
conglomerates who provide software and support expertise at rates which 
are highly attractive to Western-world managements, compared with the 
home-grown expertise they would otherwise have to buy.

And as we have seen a few times on here, the reality does not always 
match the marketing, and the actual hapless sharp-end provider of the 
services, unwilling, or unable perhaps, to obtain expert backup from his 
more senior colleagues, finds his way onto HP3000-L (something which in 
itself can be argued to show initiative), and asks us.

Past instances have included a spate of help requests from inside HP in 
India, even; though I think HP have now ensured that their associates 
there know to look internally within HP for the requisite help.

We also recently had 'how do I write and compile a program on the 
HP3000?', though that looked like a training course gone pear-shaped for 
the requestee, and we had already seen his organisation advertising for 
HP3000 expertise here. Though they wanted that in Bhopal, which might 
not have been my first choice of relocation location, rather than their 
perhaps pleasanter US offices - I wonder if they had any takers?


However, we should not allow the conjecture that if we weren't solving 
his problems here on a voluntary basis, we could perhaps have been 
solving them for his client, on a paid basis, to sway us :-)

Rajesh has got a lot further here than in those earlier cases, and 
appears to have a reasonably complex issue to resolve.

Catherine Rae has given excellent advice, as ever, and Rajesh will do 
well to read those sections of the MPE manuals that cover these areas.

I've just two points to add:

(i) when chasing down database access problems, I've found it very 
useful to use Query with the expected database name, password and access 
mode, instead of the program(s) giving issues. It eradicates, at a 
stroke, any issues that might be to do with the program not doing what 
you think it does in that area.

If everything works under Query, you know to look for errors in your 
programs - and if not, then you know, unambiguously, that you have a 
data access issue.

(ii) My second point, though, is that I'm not at all sure that Rajesh 
has given us an unambiguous statement of his problem:

>I try to access the Image database across accounts when another user is 
>using the database (but in read mode).

>The following is the actual error
>       IMAGE RESULT AT %0000: CONDITION WORD = -1
>       MPE SECURITY VIOLATION
>       DBOPEN, MODE 5, ON ABDBX
>       PROGRAM = TSTUTM.RAJPRG.DSI2
>       SUBROUTINE = UTOPENDBX
>       LOCATION = DB OPEN
>
>I am running a program (program is run from account1) which extracts 
>data from [dbase1.account1] and populates [dbase2.account2].

But if the program is in account1, and the database is in account1, 
where is this 'across accounts' access?

I know dbase2 is in a different account, but we haven't got there yet. 
(I suppose it's possible that the program has already done the mode 1 
open of dbase2 successfully and without incident, but I somehow doubt 
it).

>I get the MPE security violation error only when two users (one in 
>account1 and another in account2) are trying to access the database in 
>account1.

>user1 = opening database in mode1
>user2 = opening database in mode5

Two issues here:

(a) which one is you, Rajesh? You are in account1, opening the database 
in mode5, which would make you user2 here.

So user1, who is in account2, can open your database, the dbase1 that 
you only want to read, perfectly well in mode 1?

Or is it that *this* issue is not quite the one you are describing 
above? As there you talk about a second user in read mode, when you, 
too, are in read mode (mode 5)?

(b) You say this only occurs when two users are trying to access the 
database?

So if user1 from account2 does not have the account1 database open when 
you attempt your mode5 open from account1, all is well, and your open 
succeeds?

In this case, it would look to you as if mode 1 and mode 5 access were 
conflicting; but while there are indeed some Image access modes that do 
conflict, they are not 1 and 5; and you would get a different message if 
this were the issue.

But if you can clarify the actual problem statement, based on the 
questions above, we may well be able to help you further.
-- 
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *