RE: The "standard" environment -- SYSTEM21

Chris,
 
I would have to agree with everything you say. I too have always been insistent 
that std environment should be left completely vanilla and any changes added to 
our own environment. 
This means that when ptf's/upgrades are done there is a clear and easy way to 
reconcile the two and see where changes have been made. I would be very 
suprised if anyone can definitely say that they have adequate/easy to access 
documentation that could replace that.
What do Geac say are the benefits of moving away from this sort of setup? User 
profiles are the only one I can think of and that isn't exactly a great time 
saving.
 
I will be very interested to hear what other people think about this.
 
 
________________________________

From: system21-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Chris Tringham
Sent: Tue 15/02/2005 14:22
To: System 21 Users
Subject: [SYSTEM21] The "standard" environment



Long ago, I was persuaded that the correct way to set up S21 was to leave 
the blank environment totally alone.  Any changes (to library lists, 
tasks, menus) would go into the appropriate environments.  This advice is 
repeated in the "redbook" that came out 3-4 years ago.

Now, Geac are saying that this is not the way to go.  Instead, any new 
tasks should be created in the blank environment and library lists should 
be amended in the blank environment.  They say that as long as you use 
library mapping and follow their standards for customised tasks everything 
will be fine, and that this setup is easier to maintain and understand.  
No need to define the applications in your "standard" environment because 
you don't need them - you can use the blank environment.

There are some obvious benefits such as not needing to authorize users to 
both the blank and standard environments.  However, I still have some 
doubts, but I am not sure whether I have just been thoroughly 
indoctrinated in the old way of thinking and just can't think straight.

For example, if I want to change certain jobs to run in different job 
queues, I can change the task definition in the live and/or test 
environment and it works fine, but I haven't touched the standard 
definition.  If I make changes like that in the blank environment they may 
get overwritten by a PTF or new release.  Or is there some smarter way to 
achieve the same thing?

Any thoughts?  And have Geac announced this change in thinking somewhere 
that I haven't noticed?


_______________________________________________
This is the System 21 Users (SYSTEM21) mailing list
To post a message email: SYSTEM21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/system21
or email: SYSTEM21-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/system21.