| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4312.1 | look in mcc_example_fm_srvc_if.ms | KAJUN::NELSON | | Wed Dec 30 1992 09:58 | 15 |
| I don't know about
mcc_getevent_types.ms
but an example of the GETEVENT directive can be taken from the
mcc_example_fm_srvc_if.ms
It is not included in sys$library: (VMS) or /usr/include (ULTRIX), but
it certainly comes with the toolkit. For the short term, the MM
developer can extract it with an editor and place it in the common
include directory. The correct long term solution is probably to include
it as a separate file along with the other directives.
You should QAR the toolkit.
...kjn
|
| 4312.2 | also use MRMs | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Thu Dec 31 1992 14:29 | 5 |
|
and if you want to work with notification, get yourself a copy of
the latest notification MRM so as to allow yourself to utilize the
full functionality of the FM
|
| 4312.3 | Contain old GETEVENT format... | TAEC::LAVILLAT | | Mon Jan 04 1993 04:36 | 18 |
| Re .1:
>
>but an example of the GETEVENT directive can be taken from the
> mcc_example_fm_srvc_if.ms
>
Yes, but...
The GETEVENT directive that can be found in this file does not include
the OSI mode, Target severity, Target ... arguments.
Will it be updated or should we QAR this also ?
Regards.
Pierre.
|
| 4312.4 | QAR for tracking | TOOK::MINTZ | Erik Mintz | Mon Jan 04 1993 07:31 | 1 |
| I would suggest a QAR so it doesn't get overlooked.
|
| 4312.5 | ECO vs MRM | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Mon Jan 04 1993 09:42 | 18 |
| actually it should *NOT* be qared. The generic definition does
not require these arguments, they are utilized solely by the
notification FM and are only documented in the FM's MRM (Module
Reference Manual). Originally the ECO for the getevent directive
included these arguments in its definition but the MARG removed
them before approving the ECO, and had them moved into the MRM.
If you do not agree with this decision then please submit a suggestion
qar that either the notification FM supply a sample .MS for the
getevent it supports or that the getevent definition in the SRM
be extended to include these fields.
If you have questions on how these fields are used, check the MRM
hopefully it explains them (the MRM should be dated I believe in
September 1992).
jill
|