[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

940.0. "Event partitions codes" by DGOSW0::GUESDON () Mon Apr 22 1991 10:51

    Is it possible to use other codes than 15 and 16 for event partitions
    (We tried other codes, but the CONTROL and ALARMS FM refused to treat
    our GETEVENT requests) ?
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
940.1are you sure?TOOK::CALLANDERMon Apr 22 1991 11:396
Did the alarms FM refuse the request, or tell you it couldn't get at
the data (something along the lines of unsupported verb/entity/partition)?

Right now the control FM is a gating factor in accessing access modules. This
problem is be addressed (I thought for V1.2; some one in the know...
Ruth? any light to shed when). For now stick to 15 and 16.
940.2The alarms FM can't enable the ruleDGOSW0::GUESDONMon Apr 22 1991 13:284
    You're right, the alarms FM couldn't get the event (When I typed the
    ENABLE directive, the Alarms FM accepted it but could not do it. The
    status is "Unsupported v,e,p" when you enter SHOW MCC 0 ALARMS RULE
    TEST ALL STATUS)
940.3control, or no control (;-\)TOOK::KOHLSRuth KohlsMon Apr 22 1991 13:3026
>Right now the control FM is a gating factor in accessing access modules. This
>problem is be addressed (I thought for V1.2; some one in the know...
>Ruth? any light to shed when). For now stick to 15 and 16.

For Developers, the problem is addressed in two ways: 

 1)for now, and for VMS v1.1+, there is a
version of the Control FM with the latest directive-partition code combinations
which I will provide to people I know, or whose work I know of, or who come
with proper introductions.  The directive and partition codes are in the latest
mcc_vea_def.xxx. (which is available in the same way--if you can't get it
for yourself, ask me.)

2) In the current Ultrix DECmcc build, and in the next series of VMS DECmcc
builds, you will no longer need Control_FM.  MOST mcc_call_fm calls will
be automatically dispatched through the AM table if no dispatch entry is 
found in the FM table.  The exceptions are the directives the REGISTRATION FM 
must control itself -- REGISTER, DEREGISTER, RENAME, ERASE.  In the future,
the only time you will see that "unsupported combination ..." message will be
when the ultimate service provider (or Registration) is not enrolled.

I'm sorry, I don't know when the next series of VMS builds will begin.  

For everyone:
"Control-fm-less" DECmcc will be available to all in v1.2.

940.4Hey! Be careful out there!TOOK::GUERTINI do this for a living -- reallyMon Apr 22 1991 14:1516
    RE:.0
    
    Why do you need a different event partition?  99% of the time, Event
    Partition Configuration is the correct event partition to use.  If you
    are getting or putting events for your own entity, use Event Partition
    Configuration.  If you are writing an FM, and you want to put/get
    events for another entity (for example, Node4 entities).  Then you
    *cannot* use configuration, since that is what the DNA4 development team
    is using, and you may conflict.  In that case, you need your own Event
    Partition.  If you are requesting events, then you MUST make an
    mcc_call_xxx() with the GetEvent VERB, and request the correct event
    partition, as specified in the MRM (services offered).  It is not at
    all clear to me that your requirements are that of an FM getting and
    putting events for someone elses entities.  Is that the case?
    
    -Matt.