It still could have been done writting a SQL update to all objects to mark them as 6 or 7 after development of that product if they wanted to..
Joe ________________________________ From: Rick Cook <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:08:22 PM Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks **Help text ended with ITSM 5. Engineers accidentally removed it from 6. There apparently wasn't time to add it to 7. Rick Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ________________________________ From: Guillaume Rheault Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:04:30 -0700 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks One more comment on this topic: Something BMC should do is put help text on their OOTB application fields. I really don't know why they don't do it. -Guillaume -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Tanner, Doug Sent: Tue 03/24/09 11:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks Another reason to write/construct you own solution and follow best practices in naming conventions/documentation/etc. Been doing Remedy for 13+ years, logical naming of objects is important - Custom or OTB. Oh the days of Remedy - Your Business, Your Way! Doug Tanner Gidd how about you, how does ESS standardize naming conventions? -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks I don't think so. They will support the applications out of the box. They won't support customizations. If you break something with your customizations, they are not obligated to help you figure out how you broke it. They might, but they might not. They are also not necessarily obligated to help you understand their workflow, unless it relates to a documented integration point. Many of the whitepapers they provide are nice, but not strictly necessary. Understand that I would love it if BMC documented their systems better. I just don't think that the statement that it is necessary that they document their naming conventions, or the implied statement that they should document other implementation details, is correct. It would be great if they did, but they are under no obligation to do so. Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David.M Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks I think that paying for support says otherwise... except for that "easy" part. David M Clark Remedy Programmer/Analyst >>> Lyle Taylor <[email protected]> 3/24/2009 10:06 AM >>> Strictly speaking, ITSM is BMC's product, and they are under no obligation to provide us with any of the nitty-gritty details about how their application was written including any naming conventions used internally, etc. The fact that BMC allows you to customize the product doesn't mean they need to support you in that effort or to make it easy for you. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
