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

Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

Title:*OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference
Notice:Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1
Moderator:IOSG::PYE
Created:Thu Jan 30 1992
Last Modified:Tue Jan 23 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:4343
Total number of notes:18308

2208.0. "Migrating V2.4 SDF's to V3.0" by GANTRY::HULL (Digital Services Delivery - Motown) Wed Feb 03 1993 15:51

I am working on migrating V2.4 Site Defined Functions (~6-7) and 1 DSAB to 
V3.0.  I *just* got the new book by John Rhoton, but haven't read any of it 
yet.

Under V2.4, all the .OBJs for the SDFs and the DSAB are in SITEOALIBR.OLB. 
The SITELINK24.COM file references the library with /INCLUDE=module type 
syntax.

what is the proper setup for these Style 2 syntax SDFs in the new CM?  Do I 
still leave things in the SITEOALIBR.OLB file and just rename SITELINK24 to 
-30 and then just make simple OA$SCT$SDF index entries for the individual 
items?   Or do I need to extract each .OBJ module into a separate file in 
OA$SITE_BUILD_SHARE:, etc?

With these Style 2 syntax entries, can I get by with just entering the 
function name (key value) and the Routine address (Syntax 2)?  IS the return 
value type required, etc.?

Where/how does a DSAB (a .BLI module) fit into all this? 

If this very issue is already spelled out in gory detail in John's book, 
please give a page reference on where to look.

Wishing life were simpler,

	Al
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2208.1IDNTCR::RHOTONJohn Rhoton @TNO - DTN 871.7947Wed Feb 03 1993 16:1749
    Hi Al,
    
    Your questions might be slightly more appropriate in the
    ASIAGO::ALL-IN-1_CLI conference but since you ask here I will reply
    here.
    
>Under V2.4, all the .OBJs for the SDFs and the DSAB are in SITEOALIBR.OLB. 
>The SITELINK24.COM file references the library with /INCLUDE=module type 
>syntax.
>
>what is the proper setup for these Style 2 syntax SDFs in the new CM?  Do I 
>still leave things in the SITEOALIBR.OLB file and just rename SITELINK24 to 
>-30 and then just make simple OA$SCT$SDF index entries for the individual 
>items?   Or do I need to extract each .OBJ module into a separate file in 
>OA$SITE_BUILD_SHARE:, etc?

    You can place the object modules where-ever is most logical for you as
    long as the SITELINKnn.COM points to their actual location. 
    Personally I don't tend to put things into SITEOALIBR.OLB since I like
    to isolate my changes as much as possible but if you prefer you can put
    them there.
    
    The main thing you need to do is enter the SDFs in the table using CM
    and discard your old OASDF.BLI (if you have any code in there then
    extract it first obviously).
    
>With these Style 2 syntax entries, can I get by with just entering the 
>function name (key value) and the Routine address (Syntax 2)?  IS the return 
>value type required, etc.?

    It will force you to enter an application but it isn't used so you can
    just specify OA unless you have another, more appropriate, application
    area.
    
    Presumably the return-value-type should be INTEGER for your routines. 
    I think you can omit it and it will default correctly but you might as
    well enter the functions correctly.
    
    You shouldn't need any other fields for the (old-style) syntax-2
    functions.
    
    
>Where/how does a DSAB (a .BLI module) fit into all this? 
    
    The DSAB should continue to work as before after you recompile it,
    assuming that it does not do anything unsupported.
    
    
    John
2208.2Let us know how you get onAIMTEC::WICKS_AMUP(pets) coming to ALL-IN-1 soon?Wed Feb 03 1993 18:5017
    Al,
    
    Just a word of support - I migrated an old v2.4 SDF to v3.0 during
    DIAMOND field test and if I can do it then I know you can and this was
    of course a full year before John's book.
    
    I kept everything in CM (of course) so my BLISS module ended up in
    SITEOALIBR, my SITELINK30 is an updated copy of the old SITELINK24
    and I stuck with old-style syntax (syntax style 2) in OA$SCT$SDF because I
    never felt comfortable with the decription of the new-syntax in the APR 
    Vol 2 and the other books. A little more info was extracted from the
    session in the ALL-IN-1 Technical Update course back in August too. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks