[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

In a message dated 2/22/02 2:04:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
certz@americanmetalproducts.com writes:

> I know there is a restriction on the length of display device names to a
> length of 8.
> My boss has asked me to find a way to allow 10 character device names with
> the version of BPCS our company is currently on.
> I can not shorten the device name. That is not an option. (That is what I
> am
> currently doing.)
> What would I neet to change in order to make the software work correctly?
> We are considering upgrading to V8. Does V8 support 10 character device
> names?

First, why is your boss insisting on 10 character device names?  The latter
is totally unnecessary, even if you're using TCP/IP without naming, PASSTHRU,
or TELNET.  Removing the QPADEVxxx devices and creating shorter virtual
device names with the same characteristics will correct this problem.  You
just have to create enough devices for each aforementioned situation, or the
/400 will create new QPADEVxxx versions.

Second, depending upon what sort of legacy code you're running, I'm not sure
that I'd trust earlier suggestions that the limitation is only nine (CIM?).
The memory's the first thing to go, but I know that there _IS_ a limitation
of 8 in certain earlier BPCS applications -- although V6 _should_ cut this to
9.  I would _CERTAINLY_ appreciate it if V4x users would cease _SPECULATING_
how things work in V6 and higher on this list, as these speculations are
risking permanent damage to production data on the newer users' systems.  If
the latter continues, names will be named and those users risk being
permanently banned from BPCS-L.

Third, _IF_ you insist on using longer device names, concentrate on making
the first eight characters of the device name unique.  Problems usually occur
when QPADEV0001-9 share the same printer data area.  This is lame, which
leads to...

Finally, request (over-and-over again, if necessary) that SSA finally
eliminate this SYSTEM/36-era printer assignment paradigm from BPCS.  This
methodology was fine when most systems had only one printer and your biggest
concern was whether you were printing on 14 7/8 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 11 continuous
form paper.  To continue to _FORCE_ the use of printer name, report width,
and characters per inch based upon workstation in today's computing
environment is absolutely _LUDICROUS_.  When we print normal reports to one
printer, large reports to another, checks to yet another, and invoices to a
fourth, limiting one workstation to one printer is asinine.


Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"Our character is what we do when we think nobody is looking". -- H. Jackson
Brown, Jr.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 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].