Actually ... Active Links, Filters, And Escalations also already have
ID(s) as well.

This goes back to the RFE I put in back when it was Migrator 3 to keep
the ID the same across servers (and the fact that Migrator was doing
it's work in Alpha order so sometimes workflow would fire in different
orders between Dev, Test, and Production if you didn't watch your order
numbers)

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shellman, David
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AR System Developer Studio Wishlists

I could not agree more.  I have always found it odd that I needed to
delete Active Links, Filters, and Guides to make sure that I didn't have
duplicate workflow if I renamed even one of them.

Forms have a schemaid.  Renaming a form automatically adjusts all the
workflow associated with that form on the same server.

Your idea takes that same concept farther and allows the transfer from
server to server through the definition file.  As you state, being able
to execute a comparison of objects associated with form X on in
development vs qa vs production would be so much easier.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carey Matthew Black
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AR System Developer Studio Wishlists

David has the idea... but I will add a bit more to it since there
appears to be some interest in the idea....


When an object is first created it would get its own GGUID (Guaranteed
Global Unique ID) from the ARS server at that time and it would be
"unchangeable" while the object exists on the ARS server. (Sure maybe
you could do some funny stuff with a def/xml object file, but who would
want to? Anyway..) And just to be clear.. .the GGUID should be part of
the object and it would be retained if the object is moved from ARS
server 1 to ARS Server 2 during an object Import process. So the value
is only generated during _create_ time for the object. So a "Save As..."
would produce a new object with a new GGUID. But a "Save"
would not change the GGUID.


If every object has a GGUID then it would be simple for application
install verification to be automated to. ( Because it would become a
list of GGUID's and a process to verify that all of them exist on the
ARS server.) You could reaname the OOB object to "Didnot use-Foo" and
the application verification stuff would still work. (Extra, or changed
parts are ok. Missing parts are likely indications of
problems.)

And if you add one more layer to that... where the packing
list/applications keep track of the "verification list" during object
create/deletes then the OOB's would have a standard list and any
customized OOB would have its own list. The lists could be compared and
all missing OOB objects could be identified, and all new objects could
be identified. Yes this stops short of a full Version control system,
but it really should. All I want is identification of objects and not
version control. However once identification is established then version
control becomes much easier to tackle too.

If every object has a GGUID then Source control systems would be able to
deal with prod/dev/test systems in a sane way. And you could do things
like diff objects that were renamed on dev/test/prod because the GGUID
would tie them together.

And I am sure there are other gains that can be made once you know that
your looking at an object that was _created_ from server X.

The GGUID's could be used like "Request ID" are used for data. They
could be the pointers in the objects that point at each other.
(Containers would not need names, they could use shorter, better
indexes, less memory intensive values.)

And just a bit of an idea about how the GGUID could be generated...
     How about a combination for the Support Contract ID and the Server
key where the object was created. It could be encoded/encrypted so that
it looks like garbage to us, but could actually tell BMC quite a bit
about the source of the object if push came to shove. :) Heck it could
even include the date/time that the object was created. ( It has always
struck me as odd that objects do not have a Create date, but data
records do.)

--
Carey Matthew Black
Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP)
ARS = Action Request System(Remedy)

Love, then teach
Solution = People + Process + Tools
Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.


On 8/15/07, Shellman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hugo,
>
>  I don't think Carey is asking for the ability to have duplicate
names.
>
>  Change the name of an Active Link or Filter on development requires
that
> you delete the original on production or you wind up with duplicates
when
> you move to production with def file.
>
>  Using unique GUID would automatically rename the Active Link or
Filter and
> not cause it to be duplicated.
>
>  Dave
>  --------------------------
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wireless)
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
<[email protected]>
>  To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>  Sent: Wed Aug 15 05:08:38 2007
>  Subject: Re: AR System Developer Studio Wishlists
>
>  ** Hi Carey,
>
>  Quite, a list but I'll just pick one :)
>
>
>  On 8/15/07, Carey Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>
>          * STOP using names as the unique identifier for an ARS
object. An
>          internal GUID would go a long way to making the whole
development
>          process easier. ( Change a name and move it to production and
it
>          should stomp on the old name of the object. )
>
>  I'm not sure if I understand that. Would you like to have duplicate
Active
> Links for example which differ in functionality and GUID? To me that
would
> be development hell!
>
>  Hugo

________________________________________________________________________
_______
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where
the Answers Are"

________________________________________________________________________
_______
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where
the Answers Are"

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the 
Answers Are"

Reply via email to