Sometime this afternoon.
Hey... 112.8 Kilos today..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: U2 Users Digest V1 #573
U2 Users DigestThursday, March 17 2005Volume 01 : Number
573
In this issue:
THANKS FOR POSTING THE DIGEST TO ALL ON THE LIST :-)))
please try to reduce the postings when making a reply :-)
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Christopher
Edwards
Sendt: 17. marts 2005 10:21
Til: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Emne: [U2]
Allen,
This is a fantastic story. I am warning IT folks about just such a scenario
ALL THE TIME. I've found that in these SOX audits the IT folk seem to think
along two (deadly) lines. First, they tend to be just tell me what you
want / give me a list (e.g. don't make me think) and secondly
What if I make a change to the code in the system according to what the
CFO wants and then I get implicated as being an accomplice to fraud.
Can I pull my college credits where I failed accounting as being my
defense?
Is it getting to the point where every change to the system requires a
call to
Gordon,
I didn't read your first posting. So this email may not make a sense.
Sorry.
We just converted UNIX traditional authentication method to use Active
Directory. As you may know, AD is Microsoft's LDAP solution.
Our current production UNIX platforms are:
OS: HP-UX 11.11
64-bit UniData
Jeff,
That one is easy.
Requests for mods to the software must be documented and their justification
is part of the request. Every SOX auditor I've come across has made this
mandate.
So in IT we have a methodology where we are responding to written requests
that have been through authorization
Is it getting to the point where every change to the system requires a
call to a lawyer to check to see if it is ok?
Yes ! or atleast it seems that way here.
We've gone from complete freedom to no changes without the appropriate
documentation and approval overnight.
All changes must be user
Craig,
You are correct, UniDebugger does use a telnet session. But if it also
utilizes UniObjects to read in the program you want to work on. I can
connect using my login and password for the telnet session but when I try
to open a program to edit with UniObjects is when I get the error.
I
Funny you should mention it. We just started experimenting with XML yesterday.
CR comes with an
ODBC driver for XML files. UD's LISTTOXML seems to work as advertised.
Many details remain
to be investigated, but it looks promising so far.
Jim
--- John Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Comments embedded in the message below.
Susan Joslyn wrote:
Allen,
This is a fantastic story. I am warning IT folks about just such a scenario
ALL THE TIME. I've found that in these SOX audits the IT folk seem to think
along two (deadly) lines. First, they tend to be just tell me what you
want
Let's move this to U2-Community.
You may subscribe to U2-Community, send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Place the following line by itself in the body of the mail:
subscribe u2-community
More info:
Hi Susan,
I see we are on the same page on this one! :-)
Hey, I hope you're wearing green. It's Saint Patrick's day!!!
http://www.st-patricks-day.com/index.asp
Allen (wearing his lucky green pants)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jim Bullock wrote:
Funny you should mention it. We just started experimenting
with XML yesterday. CR comes with an
ODBC driver for XML files. UD's LISTTOXML seems to work
as advertised. Many details remain
to be investigated, but it looks promising so far.
If LIST...TOXML
Universe 9.6.2.5
IBM H50 server with 4 CPU's
AIX 4.3.3
Does anyone know how I can tell that this server is running multiple
CPU's? In addition, how does Universe handle multiple CPU's? I know
that there's been discussion about multi-threading in universe, but at a
more basic level, shouldn't
If you're adding a lot of records to the archives at once and it was
undersized, you're going to pay a hit while the system resizes on the
fly. If you're dramatically increasing the record count, it would be
better to resize before copying. Just as it's better to turn off
indexing when
!EXISTS (or similar) was definitely there in PI, I also thought it was
around in UV but I seem to remember looking for it a while back and also
drawing a blank
Piers
---
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Again this message does not say *how* to move the discussion to u2-community.
Can not we have a standard message that describes how to do this?
I feel like a broken record.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2005
In order to post TO the u2-community list, put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To:
field
Will
-Original Message-
From: Moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:24:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [U2] Financial Fraud
Let's move this to U2-Community.
You
Nearly right!
I think it's
ITS.THERE = @FALSE
CALL !EXIST(SUBRNAME, ITS.THERE)
IF ITS.THERE THEN
CALL @SUBRNAME( arg1, arg2, . . . )
etc.
END ELSE
* It doesn't exist
END
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson,
Charles
As others have pointed out the routine is !EXIST - look in APP.PROGS,
the code is there. All it does is open GLOBAL.CATDIR and attempts to
read a record keyed on the subroutine.name.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stevenson,
Charles
Sent:
Thanks, Mike.
Now I remember why I forgot about it. I'm in Pick-flavor and this thing
seems to just check to see if the routine is in uv/catdir. We have
pick-style cataloguing.
I was thinking !EXIST() would resolve the question following the same
rules as CALL does for finding a subroutine:
21 matches
Mail list logo