Jeff Vance wrote: << SNIP SNIP most of the good stuff >> > John wrote: > > Specific reasons for what you are asking might be in an environment where > > separate applications are spread over several accounts and you may not want > the > > users in one application looking at the "global" variables in another > > application on the same system.<< SNIP SNIP all of the reply - my software says I can't send a smaller reply than the original message >> Just a quick confirmation of this point. We use those old HP3000 boxes(System 70). We've ordered the new ones. Don't know much about the IX. We often have a job run in one account then have another job complete a task. For example: Job1 does a database change. Job2 moves new object code into place. Job3 sends a verification note. Job1 and Job2 don't need to communicate togeather; however, Job3 must know the results of both of the other jobs. A simple global "hunk of data" that is shared would solve the problem. I, for one, would like to see the existing methods left unchanged (add new functions with a different "name"). Keep it easy to TEACH to others please. Secuity in global data is self-contradictive. What it sounds like is - this thread is moving the concept toward a OOVAR. A process would obtain all the restrictions of a "hunk of data" based on the methods which are a part of it. An Object VAR would know what the rules are for its use when it is created since it is created by a specific process which enforces the rules. I would like to see the methods used in our system to be similar to methods used on other systems. POSIX would be fine. This way I learn one concept (OO or POSIX or distributed document jibberish).