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

Conference azur::mcc

Title:DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:TAEC::BEROUD
Created:Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:6497
Total number of notes:27359

5728.0. "Private MIR (sharing data)" by FRAIS::WELLERSHAUS (Heidi Wellershaus) Wed Nov 10 1993 09:01

Eigentum von:       Heidi Wellershaus
Schriftst�cknummer: 002351

d i g i t a l
                  I N T E R N E   M I T T E I L U N G

                                   Versendet:    (Nicht versendet)
                                   Von:          Heidi Wellershaus      
                                                 WELLERSHAUS.HEIDI 
                                   Abt:          C&N Siegen
                                   Tel:          0271 3841

AN:  Heidi Wellershaus                    ( WELLERSHAUS.HEIDI )


Betr.: Private MIR                                                  




We have a question to the Management Module Programming V1.3, Chapter 18.2.5:
"Using the MIR common routines, you can create named repositories to hold
your Management Module's private data.
These repositories are not meant to be shared between Management Modules.
You can, however, share the data within these repositories by using the MCC_CALL
interface."

In our TBL-Project (see also note 5594) we want to share the private data between several Management 
Modules on one system using the MIR common routines (mcc_mir_), not the 
MCC_CALL_interface.

After some tests we didn't find out any problems with our implementation,
has anyone made other experiences?
What are the reasons for the above mentioned recommendation, 
what are the risks ignoring this?  


T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
5728.1MCDOUG::dougImagine whirled peas.Wed Nov 10 1993 09:4520
>After some tests we didn't find out any problems with our implementation,
>has anyone made other experiences?
>What are the reasons for the above mentioned recommendation, 
>what are the risks ignoring this?  


    As far as I can tell, it's an issue of encapsulation & code
    reusability.

    If you don't use the MCC_CALL interface, then you'll not be able to
    take advantage of MM distribution (if it ever sees the light of day).
    That'd be a shame.

    As long as you are in *complete* control of the MMs that need/use the
    data in your private MIRs, then I think you should be OK. 
    
/doug