>> How big will an XML-export of ITSM get? Huge. Around 800mb or so. But I wouldn't recommend exporting it all to the same file :-)
For those purposes, I just use a separate script that queries all the objects from the server and exports them to individual files. Once you build a "workflow cache" like this, it's a seriously handy resource. Especially in conjunction with grep :-) -Andy On Aug 12, 2015 1:50 PM, "Misi Mladoniczky" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > You are right, there are uses for the XML format. > > I have written perl parsers for the DEF format instead, as the XML format > gave > files that was too big. I am talking about complete exports of a whole > system. > How big will an XML-export of ITSM get? > > Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) > > Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13): > * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. > * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. > Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. > > >>> Why use XML definition files? > >>> It just adds a tremendous amount of tags > >>> resulting in enormous files... > > > > Because it's awesome, that's why! > > I can extract (nearly all) the workflow and forms from an entire server > and > > I can parse them with xpath. > > > > That is a HUGE capability. I've found and fixed some of the gnarliest > bugs > > of my carreer doing just that. > > > > I don't give a hoot about the file size (within reason). I DO care about > > being able to quickly write scripts to descend mountains of workflow and > > find exactly what I need, and even modify it without ever needing to > write > > a custom parser. > > > > For instance ... say you've got a few hundred filters calling webservice > > endpoint A and that needs to be endpoint B now ... it's a snap with xml > > export and a perl script. > > > > -Andy > > DEF is great for purely importing and exporting - XML is better for > editing > > content manually. Personally I use XML on occasions I need to edit the > > definitions and DEF only if I intend to use it as is for import later > > without having to edit anything. > > > > Cheers > > > > Joe > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Misi Mladoniczky > > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 1:33 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Export definitions options ==> Bug or feature?? > > > > Hi, > > > > Updating XML is much more complicated. On DEF files you can just append > > additional objects at the end. > > > > To update XML in a correct way you should parse and validate the complete > > XML-file before you add the extra content and save it to disc again. This > > would be a client exercise, and it would use a lot of memory and process > > power. I think that the creation of the XML is done on the server today > > which > > makes it even more complex to do. > > > > Why use XML definition files? It just adds a tremendous amount of tags > > resulting in enormous files... > > > > Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP > 2011) > > > > Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13): > > * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. > > * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. > > Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se > . > > > >> I was thinking the same thing. The increased challenge of exporting to > xml > >> vs how many people export to xml probably wasn't worth the effort. > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:16 AM, LJ LongWing <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >>> ** > >>> Joe, > >>> Consider it a feature :).... > >>> > >>> First line of an XML def export is > >>> > >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><root> > >>> > >>> If appending more to the end, you can't add another <?xml in the middle > >>> because you feel like it, so you can't just 'append' the same way to an > > XML > >>> as you do to a def....to append to an XML you would need to not put the > >>> same first line in what you are appending, and you would need to edit > the > >>> original file and pull off the last line of '</root>'...whereas when > > doing > >>> an append for regular def, you can just add things to the end... > >>> > >>> So....while none of this is saying that it couldn't be overcome and do > >>> appends on XML....it's not as straight forward and easy as def...so I > > guess > >>> they chose to design it this way, which makes it a feature :) > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:07 AM Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> ** > >>>> > >>>> If a feature I wonder what the benefit of it might be as I do not see > >>>> one. Which makes me think it's a bug. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If you select workflow objects to export, and select the export type > as > >>>> .DEF, all is good. You can export your objects & create the export > file > > and > >>>> then if you missed exporting some just select those, export again, and > > you > >>>> get Append and Overwrite as two modes in which you can export so you > can > >>>> Append to your existing file. HOWEVER, if you choose to export your > >>>> definitions as an XML, and later choose to export some more, you do > not > > get > >>>> an Append option. So your only option is to select all the objects you > > want > >>>> to including what you missed, and then Overwrite. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Is this a bug? Or "claimed" as a feature? If a feature, what is the > >>>> benefit of this design? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I noticed this on 8.1.2 but something tells me it might have been a > >>>> pre-existing bug or feature since the inception of export formats as > > .xml. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > >>> > >>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > >>> > >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > ___ > >> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > >> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > ___ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
