[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference pamsrc::decmessageq

Title:	NAS Message Queuing Bus
Notice:	KITS/DOC, see 4.*; Entering QARs, see 9.1; Register in 10
Moderator:	PAMSRC::MARCUSEN

Created:	Wed Feb 27 1991
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	2898
Total number of notes:	12363

2789.0. "Year 2000 issues" by IRNBRU::JWESTERMAN (Jeremy Westerman, MSG+ Middleware, Ayr.) Wed Feb 26 1997 04:11

 
One of our customers has asked us the following questions related to Year 2000
issues and DMQ.  Could you let me know some answers to give to him.

     1. Have you looked into the year 2000 issue?
     2. Do you know if there are any concerns/issues with
        the current version of the software?
     3. If so, has the vendor indicated the capability and timing
        re the upgrade of the software?
     4. If you are linking to legacy software with the bolt-on, have
        you given thought to whether or not the legacy software has year
        2000 implications?
     5. Bottom line....are they any concerns/implications that you should
        be looking at re the year 2000 issue.

Thanks, Jeremy.

T.R Title User Personal
Name Date Lines

2789.1 No problem... KLOVIA::MICHELSEN DECmessageQ Engineering Wed Feb 26 1997 07:51 34

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
2789.1	No problem...	KLOVIA::MICHELSEN	DECmessageQ Engineering	`Wed Feb 26 1997 07:51`	34
	> 1. Have you looked into the year 2000 issue? Yes. > 2. Do you know if there are any concerns/issues with > the current version of the software? None, all of our time handling is done in binary. Therefore if the OS can handle it we can handle it. > 3. If so, has the vendor indicated the capability and timing > re the upgrade of the software? N/A > 4. If you are linking to legacy software with the bolt-on, have > you given thought to whether or not the legacy software has year > 2000 implications? None, not our problem if some product/application, that sits on top of DmQ, can't handle year 2000 issues. > 5. Bottom line....are they any concerns/implications that you should > be looking at re the year 2000 issue. None. Marty

>     1. Have you looked into the year 2000 issue?

	Yes.

>     2. Do you know if there are any concerns/issues with
>        the current version of the software?

	None, all of our time handling is done in binary.  Therefore if the
	OS can handle it we can handle it.


>     3. If so, has the vendor indicated the capability and timing
>        re the upgrade of the software?

	N/A

>     4. If you are linking to legacy software with the bolt-on, have
>        you given thought to whether or not the legacy software has year
>        2000 implications?

	None, not our problem if some product/application, that sits on top 
	of DmQ, can't handle year 2000 issues.


>     5. Bottom line....are they any concerns/implications that you should
>        be looking at re the year 2000 issue.


	None.



	Marty