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.



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>
        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,
or email: SYSTEM21-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives

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 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].