|
From Al Macintyre 405 CD mixed mode nmenon@cott.com writes: > Is there any other reason for creating separate libraries for Base BPCS, PTF > BPCS and BMR BPCS in Production Environment, besides testing. Any new or replacement software has been known to contain new bugs. I have found & fixed several bugs in SSA BMRs before I installed that software on our system. Do you habitually inspect SSA BMR source code to see what they are doing in their fixes? It can be so time consuming, that I only do random checks, focusing on the programs we use the most heavily. We have installed BMRs into our library list, then had serious problems & had to uninstall those BMRs .... it is much easier to uninstall a library from a library list than to reconsititute a library that has had a working object replaced by a defective object. In the case of adding a PTF REL in which there are some multiple of a thousand fixes & we really very urgently need several hundred of them, but 10 just broke something, we insert a new library in our list, above the PTF REL called PTF whatever # FIX which contains copies of the original BASE, or earlier PTF or BMR version that WORKED before the latest PTF broke them. We also report this to SSA, but sometimes getting the problem fixed TODAY is more important than the communications to make sure that SSA understands the problem ... if they could understand it in a day or two, we could wait on the fix, but that is rare. Any subsequent BMRs are installed above the FIX library. It currently is impossible for SSA to do complete & thorough testing of their software in all combinations that can apply for plain vanilla BPCS, not counting any modifications a customer may have added to the picture. There was a time that SSA made marketing claims that they had a fool proof system for doing this, a system & marketing story that both has been abandoned as a total failure. It is currently possible for some consultants to do complete & thorough testing of their client sites, and also some that cannot may claim that they can, but all clients that I have any awareness of elect not to have this done due to the expense. During our Y2K conversion, I briefly looked into us getting our own automated testing tools, but it was another tool to have to learn & we could only justify its purchase for a narrow time window, so I lived without that expense. We have a library containing a collection of MANY BMRs that have been running on our system for 6 months or more with NO PROBLEMS. It is a pain in the neck to move the stuff there, and to eliminate the BMR libraries from our library list, but this sort of continuing support is neccessary to avoid running out of what can go in a library list. When the next release comes out ... PTF collection whatever REL number,, it is supposed to contain everything that was in the old PTF REL & all BMR since, but it pays to verify that ... when I compared what was in PTF REL 02 with PTF REL 01 I found that some BMRs had gone missing from the list, that SSA had put in PTF REL 01 but forgotten to include in PTF REL 02. This is why our library list has REL 02 above PTF 01 ... both in our library list. It wasn't worth futzing with the why of all this. We cleared out all the BMR libraries from our library list that were superceded by PTF REL 02. A bad consequence of this SSA architecture is that the total amount of disk space needed for all this software is HIGHER than the total amount of disk space for all the DATA FILES. We have separate libraries in our library list for A library containing user queries ... our power users can run them from command line Our software modification add ons BPCS software modification add ons from 3rd parties Files we have added to the BPCS collection, such as new logicals. Our latest new files are ECIF ... cross index by customer / item / facility what items we make for what customers in which facilities, with date of last shipment, revision involved, and production hours needed to make one part (poor man's extremely rough cut Capacity Planning estimating tool) which was built by going down BOM to access routings on every sub-assembly HCIF ... end to end cross index of every raw material consumed by every end item we use & from what vendor we get it & how much is needed from BOM aggregate .... this helps us identify materials orphaned by engineering changes, and assists in negotiations for better price breaks from vendors > From: LACELLE@rcmint.ca (Lacelle, Marc) Al comments in line where Marc says something & Al adds to the sub topic > Consistency is the main reason. > BPCS environments are based on hierarchical structures. > In common English: > When calling a program or using a data file it will search > through your library list starting from the top to the bottom. > > A standard library list looks like this. > > BPCSTCPIP (if you are using CEA or NLV) > BPCSXXXUSR (startup programs, nothing else) > BPCSXXXUO (your custom programs) > BPCSXXXUF (your custom data files) > BPCSXXXPTF (cumm PTF) > BPCSXXXF (base bpcs data files) > BPCSXXXO (base bpcs objects) > > For this example, lets use INV500D1 (this object has been moded a > few times over the years) > > When using INV500D1 in a bpcs environment > it will first search the TCPIP lib and move on > to the next library which is the USR lib. > It will do this until it finds INV500D1 in the PTF lib. > Please note: INV500D1 also lives in the O library. > This INV500D1 is the base object (no mods). > The same method is used for data files, which are in the F library. We need to be more careful with data files than we are with objects. I have no problem with having the latest copy of an executable object at the top of a library list, in which removing that library from your *LIB or moving it lower down is a way to access an earlier version of the program. I do have a problem with a new version of a data file. The old version is POPULATED. I do not want to replace it with a new empty version. I am also nervous about programs compiled using a logical then having 2 copies of that logical in library list. I do not want any risk that sometimes data will end up in the wrong copy of the file. There is also an issue of backup restore sequence of libraries needs to connect right logical to physical restored before logical. Also, if you have a test environment & a live environment, like we do, it is Ok to have the same executable software libraries in both places, with single exception of BPCSMENU start up library list etc. It is not Ok to have same libraries that happen to contain any data files ... physical or logical. > If your IT staff would need to mod the INV500D1 program. You would > copy the INV500D1 > from the PTF lib to your UO library and make the changes there. > Always keep the original object in its original library. Then when a new BMR arrives on INV500D1 you need to evaluate how to merge your modifications with what SSA did in their latest upgrade. Using PDM-54 on pairs of latest BMR source vs. prior source & your mods vs. prior source, can be invaluable. > You can remove objects from your O library that are present in your > PTF library. BUT ONLY THOSE OBJECTS. And it would be real smart to keep some memory that those objects had been removed, in case later on you get another PTF library & consider removing the PTF library containing replacement objects whose replacements have been removed. > For the minimal room on your disk that you reclaim, I for one would > not do this. > > I hope this helps > > Marc Lacelle > Royal Canadian Mint Al Macintyre ©¿© BPCS 405 CD Rel-02 on AS/400 V4R3 http://www.cen-elec.com +--- | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.