Is this similar to the relationships strategy of CSS (Customer Service and Support) - from 10+ years ago???
I thought it was pretty good back then. I had a few suggestions to make it easier/faster … but - if it is not the same thing - then no biggie. Here is the suggestion: It used to be in the relationships table you held a left side and a right side of the relationship. So - if you wanted to see if something has relations … you would have to do something like: ‘myID’ = ’left side” OR ‘myID’ = 'right side’. And — you would have a couple of those - and they got complicated very quickly. (We built something called KSS (Kinetic Service Suite) on top of CSS — and we were very deep into the “workings of CSS” and we wrestled with this) So - the “proposed solution” would be to write into the relationship table the relation twice. Like this: ObjType1, ID1 , ObjType2, ID2 User, abc123, Incident, def456 Incident, def456, User, abc123 So - now — if you want to find if you have a relation — you can just search against ObjType1, ID1 (which ends up with a smaller index) (AKA - faster) A couple filters would (maintain the “duplicates”) Create filter … create the same relationship but switching objects (pass a value - so you don’t go recursive) Delete filter … delete the reverse Modify filter … similar to create Also - there should be a nice REST API — (Higher level than the current REST APIs … which pull back relationships too (and their details) … that way you don’t have to do 20 REST calls back/forth). So - I haven’t looked at the associations in 9 - but - that is what I remember from the CSS days. I also remember storing relationships in different tables vs one big relationship table … I thought that was a bad idea — I think it should have been one big relationship table — let the DB handle the hard stuff. Also — I am not sure how it is implemented now … - but you had to include a bunch of filters into your stuff - which seemed buggy (or easily forgotten) — so - before you knew it - you had lots of relationships that didn’t get deleted, or relationships that existed but didn’t get created/updated… Seems like this relationship stuff should be “low-level” and in the actual ARS code vs filters. (Maybe that is how it is done in 9) Again - if it is what I think it is … this is an excellent foundational piece that will be quite valuable and extendable. Nice work!!! Party on. -John On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Mitcham, Ross <ross_mitc...@bmc.com> wrote: > ** > > Absolutely correct, there are so may current and future uses of these > associations, ITSM apps really are only utilizing them currently for > archive purposes (plus it gives customer a way to see the data model > without having to investigate lots of code) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *Ross Mitcham* > > Lead Product Developer > > *Direct* > > > > +1 905.707.3534 > > 50 Minthorn Bvld. > > Suite 200 > Markham, ON L3T 7X8 > Canada > > [image: BMC Communities] <https://communities.bmc.com/> > > [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/bmcsoftware> > > [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/bmcsoftware> > > [image: YouTube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/BMCSoftwareBMCtv> > > [image: LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/bmc-software> > > [image: Communities] <https://plus.google.com/+bmcsoftware/> > > [image: BMC Software|Bring IT to Life] <http://www.bmc.com/> > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Jason Miller > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:14 PM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: ARS v9.0 - New Server Object - Associations > > > > ** > > I have messed with it a little bit. I setup some simple POC archiving for > one of our custom apps. > > > > You are right, this feature is likely going to be huge. BMC already has > some ideas around where they want to utilize this feature. The ITSM > archiving doesn't even use it to its full potential (but does what it needs > to). The out of the box ITSM archiving in 9.0 is just the tip of the > iceberg. > > > > Jason > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Thad Esser <thad.es...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ** > > Has anyone else taken a look at the new "Association" server object for > version 9.0? I've only read the docs (haven't played with it yet), but > this seem like a huge new feature, with possibilities way beyond just > archiving (which is what the docs say its being used for). > > > https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars9000/Associations+overview > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4v0X2SimKY > > > > Just curious what others thought, or if I'm nerd-ing out too much. > > > > Thad > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ -- *John Sundberg* Kinetic Data, Inc. "Your business. Your process." 651-556-0930 I john.sundb...@kineticdata.com www.kineticdata.com I community.kineticdata.com _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
