[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
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 |
3486.0. "SCM+ in a VAX and AXP cluster" by IOSG::BILSBOROUGH (SWBFS) Tue Nov 02 1993 18:30
Hi,
I am investigating the changes required to Customisation Management to get it
working in a mixed architecture cluster i.e. A cluster with VAX and AXP nodes.
The main problem that CM will have in this environment is with the compilable
element types such as OASDF,OAMAR etc.
I need to know more about what customers are actually doing
with these types in CM before I can be sure of my design so I have a few
questions which I'd appreciate answers to.
1. Have customers added any other compilable element types.
2. If so are they using these elements types as
part of the ALL-IN-1 application or their own applications.
i.e. Are these elements in the OA application or not.
3. Have they created any additional elements using the
compilable Digital supplied element types.
The reason I ask this is because it would make the changes much easier if I just
have to support the existing element types only in the ALL-IN-1 application. If
I have to worry about additional compilable types or the possibility of
customers having CM applications which will have to be changed because of a
mixed node cluster then it makes matters a lot worse.
At the moment my favourite idea is to simply split source files into
a VAX and AXP version. So that there will be a OAET_VAX.MAR and OAET_AXP.MAR
etc. OAET_VAX.MAR would have a target of OA$SITE_BUILD_SHARE_VAX:SITEOALIBR.OLB
and OAET_AXP.MAR would have a target of OA$SITE_BUILD_SHARE_AXP:SITEOALIBR.OLB.
This might sound like extra work for the user (making sure changes are made to
both source files) but as it is they will need to mark for move pending (ML) and
move live (via AM PME) on both systems seperately, so a mixed cluter isn't nice
anyway.
I don't love this idea but it will work in all situations and is easy
to implement considering the number of compilable elements in SCM+
I have been into the depths of SCM+ and each time a problem is solved another
complication arises.
Any feedback is most welcome.
ta,
Mike
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines
|
---|