Chris, I must agree with you on this point I too believe that keeping environments separate is the cleanest and easiest thing to do when it come to an upgrade. I had this in place at my last employers and had no problems what so ever. We actually had several environments, including the blank. Unlike here where I've walked into everything going into the standard environment. We've been looking at the impact this will cause to upgrade to Aurora from 3.5.2 SP4 and have decided that when we upgrade the easiest option (and probably cheapest) is for us to buy a new box and install Aurora onto it as a Vanilla product and change our business processes rather than the system processes where possible to come away from as much of the bespoke work we currently have. Obviously anything we do need will go into our 'standard' environment and not the blank. Regards Jon Jon.Wadey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Supercook Website "Chris Tringham" <ctringham@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: system21-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 15/02/2005 14:22 Please respond to System 21 Users To: "System 21 Users" <system21@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cc: 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.