Is there any repercussion from using a field ID like 11 in a custom
build form?
This field ID is the Company field ID in the COM:Company form and I wanted
to build a 'staging/integration' form to accept data using AIE, process it
if necessary, before I push it to the 'Load' form. To
I would if I were you :)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Joe D'Souza jdso...@shyle.net wrote:
**
Is there any repercussion from using a field ID like 11 in a
custom build form?
This field ID is the Company field ID in the COM:Company form and I wanted
to build a
Same here!
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: 26 August 2014 15:29
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Using an ID like 11 (BMC Software's development field
range) in a home grown custom form...
**
I
Hi Joe,
We have done the same thing and it's works well especially with
the CMDB
--
Danny Kellett
dkell...@javasystemsolutions.com
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 03:24 PM, Joe D'Souza wrote:
**
Is there any repercussion from using a field ID like 11
in a custom build form?
This
Hi,
We always used the field numbers on the staging form. Also if they were
menu fields we attached the foundation menus. Never had a problem.
Regards,
==
Julia James
Application Developer and Support, IC3-SMI for Remedy and Impact
ITIL® V3
I have always considered it best practice that if you are using a field in a
custom form for the same purpose it exists in the ITSM Suite, to actually
use the same field id (sometimes doing a copy and paste from the ITSM form
to the new form).
Main caveat is permissions and ensuring you get
This is a custom form (that will stage data to massage it if required and
then push to the Load forms), so BMC won't be touching it unless off course
if by chance they happen to name a form that starts with STG: followed by
the exact same name I use :-). Then I'll be pretty much shot down :-).
Hi Experts,
We are planning to Implement BMC Chat in Remedy 8.1 Environment.However we have
few queries on
Licensing and business cases.I have gone through BMC Chat Admin/User
Installation Guide,but
could not gather much information.Please advise on below to proceed further:-
1- Do we
Hi Experts,
Any thoughts on below query.
Regards,
Raj
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:47:23 +0530 rajesh wrote
Hi All,
We have a requirement of moving all the Services from our Current Product
(Cisco Request
Center)
to BMC SRM.We have Close to 200 services which needs to be migrated to BMC SRM.
Danny. Peter, LJ, Julia,
Thanks for your responses. I just wanted to make sure the Field ID's used in
the Foundation data fields, did not mean anything to the system.
I didn't think they did as the Load forms have the same ID's as well.
Usually when time permits, I create my own ID's
That I know of : It is just a build from scratch. but I do not know CRC --
I know of no migration tool
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:41 PM, rajesh rajhp...@rediffmail.com wrote:
** Hi Experts,
Any thoughts on below query.
Regards,
Raj
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:47:23 +0530 rajesh wrote
Hi
Rajesh,
I'm no licensing expert, but here is my understanding.
1 - As you have pointed out, Chat and Virtual Agent are two completely
separate things
2 - Due to the fact that Chat uses an open (non bmc) chat server, that you
can actually connect to outside of Remedy, I can't see how they can
*** newScale does not hold their data in a structured easy to read way.
*** much of newScale is done in “javascript” … it doesn’t convert nicely to
a structured system like SRM.
You asked how to convert to SRM — which I am unable to comment.
However - you asked a 2nd time …
so...
For this
Rajesh,
You are talking 2 completely different products and SRM has it's own world of
complexity built in. I hate to say it, but you're going to have to build these
out. You may be able to build a spreadsheet and create just the SRD's but I'm
not sure if that really buys you anything since you
Hi Joe! I always have with no issues.
From: Joe D'Souza jdso...@shyle.net
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:24 AM
Subject: Using an ID like 11 (BMC Software's development field range)
in a home grown custom form...
**
Is
Thanks Tauf Experts,
I thought same as building SRD's from scratch would be best bet.
Thanks!
Raj
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:35:27 +0530 Tauf Chowdhury wrote
**
Rajesh,You are talking 2 completely different products and SRM has it's own
world of
complexity built in. I hate to say it, but
I know I'm asking about something relatively old...but I remember that
Sparc/x86 support was dropped at some point, but I'm wondering if Remedy
6.3 still had that ability or not.
Does anyone remember?
___
UNSUBSCRIBE or
There was never a Solaris x86 version of the AR server (as far as I know). The
only Solaris supported for AR Server is the SPARC version.
Fred
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:42 PM
To:
h...I swear I remember some discussion at some point...maybe it was one
of the 'unix' installers that worked on Solaris x86.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
frederick.w.gro...@xo.com wrote:
**
There was never a Solaris x86 version of the AR server (as far as I
My $.02...
I would recommend you put the customer abbr first in your naming convention
so that all your custom workflow is grouped together.
...Julie
From: Joe D'Souza jdso...@shyle.net
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:38 PM
Subject:
Yes there are a few core forms (User, Group, AR System Email Messages) that
have some system fields IDs (often 3 digits) that can wreak havoc if you do
a Save As of the form. Even if use a few those very special field IDs on a
custom form the system will often reference your form for its special
Joe,
As others have said, there is no problem with what you are doing and in fact it
is encouraged. It allows
you to share workflow (and with granular overlays you can overlay workflow and
change nothing but say
to add to one more form and you keep inheriting BMC changes to it and it is
I second this recommendation. I have 10-15 customers to whom I've sold Kinetic
Request. These tend to be customers who are doing more complex types of tasks
and who have more robust interface requirements. I have also sold SRM - It has
improved significantly in the last few years, but there are
Linux is x86
Unix is HP-UX, Solaris SPARC, and AIX
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:02 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy 6.3 and Solaris x86?
**
h...I swear I remember
yes, you are 100% correctLinux is what I was thinking.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
frederick.w.gro...@xo.com wrote:
**
Linux is x86
Unix is HP-UX, Solaris SPARC, and AIX
*From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]
I had 6.3 Linux servers at one point. Or maybe it was 6.0? It was some
flavor of 6.
Jason
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM, LJ LongWing lj.longw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
yes, you are 100% correctLinux is what I was thinking.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
I know we changed from Solaris SPARC to Linux at either 6.3 or 7.They moved
our database from Solaris SPARC to Solaris x86 around that same time as well.
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
Sent: Tuesday, August 26,
Maybe it's the db that'd no longer supported on that platform?
On Aug 26, 2014 3:51 PM, Grooms, Frederick W frederick.w.gro...@xo.com
wrote:
**
I know we changed from Solaris SPARC to Linux at either 6.3 or 7.They
moved our database from Solaris SPARC to Solaris x86 around that same time
Nah … There is no platform requirement for the database. As long as it is a
supported version and I can connect to it from the AR Server it will work.
Fred
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014
No clue where my brain is then.
On Aug 26, 2014 4:17 PM, Grooms, Frederick W frederick.w.gro...@xo.com
wrote:
**
Nah … There is no platform requirement for the database. As long as it
is a supported version and I can connect to it from the AR Server it will
work.
Fred
*From:* Action
Thanks Doug,
Always reassuring to hear it from you.
I do know about the functional fields (fields below 1000) and those between
1000 and 1 - though for some reason I thought it was upto 9. Aware
of the global fields and other documented reserved fields as well.
All the fields
Is this not allowed? Or is this by design so one cannot modify a BMC
Software OTB application?
The 'Create Overlay' option is grayed out only for 'Deployable' applications
while its available for 'Local' applications.
I was intending to add a form to Remedy Foundation Company and other
If I'm not mistaken, it was because the overlay concept was not fully baked
in that version. Deployable applications are data, and data was not able
to be overlaid.
With that said, here is how I have done it.
Convert your object to base, add it to the app, convert it back to Custom.
I have
Converting Custom to Base should work in the Best Practice Mode. No problem
there if I need to convert that.
However, don't you then have to switch out of the Best Practice Mode when
you attempt to add a Base object to an Unmodified Application that has no
Overlay on it?
Joe
_
Yea
On Aug 26, 2014 7:44 PM, Joe D'Souza jdso...@shyle.net wrote:
**
Converting Custom to Base should work in the Best Practice Mode. No
problem there if I need to convert that.
However, don’t you then have to switch out of the Best Practice Mode when
you attempt to add a Base object to
Joe,
Deployable Applications were not overlayable in 7.6.04. They were added to the
things you could overlay
in the 8.0 release so they are overlayable in 8.0 and later.
And, with 8.1 you get granular overlays and so a lot finer control of things.
So, TWO reasons to upgrade the
platform!
Thanks for your response Doug..
That definitely gives two good reasons to upgrade! But my customer is not
ready for it as yet at the moment for a few reasons. They were on 6.3 to
begin with on a fully home grown application, from which they are moving
away, and had already started going the
37 matches
Mail list logo
