Yes, I completely understand your point and can relate with that. I've also spent countless hours trying to reverse engineer BMC's code via filter and active link logs, etc., and felt like tearing my hair out more than once...
Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lammey, Peter A. Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:27 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks At first when I read your response Lyle I was taken aback but I definitely now understand your viewpoint. BMC Developers are constantly under the gun to upgrade their applications and with their ITSM application upgrades comes new functionality offered by the new AR System platform and its new features. That can lead to more that any workflow can do as far as actions and execute conditions, etc which could lead to new naming conventions. Going back and rewriting the existing code that is transferred to the new version would be quite an undertaking hence the state of all the ITSM workflow setup with 30 character as the limit even though that limit changed with AR System 7. The bottom line point with this rant is that looking up how things work and/or trying to troubleshoot issues typically ends up requiring developers to look through a mass number of Active Links or Filters listed by forms or by prefixes and trying to make sense of the listings of various workflow. Based on the toolset we have (the Remedy Admin Tool) we try to rely on the naming conventions to allow us to make sense of how things work and/or to quickly research and troubleshoot issues or questions that may arise. Ideally a better view of the workflow in a more recognizable format would provide developers a better way of performing this effort. I think that's really all developers are concerned about. Ive seen tools such as Abydos Analyser and Designer that can help but I have yet to see a tool BMC has provides that makes this effort of "seeing the big picture" easier. Ive seen some shots of the new Developers Tool offered for ARS 7.5 but not sure if that alleviates the need to look through lists of workflow and with the need to understand and see the big picture based on the naming conventions. Thanks Peter Lammey ESPN IT Client Architecture and Automation 860-766-4761 -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:12 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks Let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you make some code changes to the CMDB and you find after a bit that reconciliation is not working. You're not sure if it's your changes or an issue with the system. You contact BMC for support, and they ask you to send them logs, etc. At some point you indicate, "well, we made some changes, but I'm not sure they would affect this." Eventually, if they can't replicate the issue on their side or see from the logs what's going on, they may ask you to undo your changes and see if the issue still persists. If they suspect the issue is due to your changes, depending on who you're working with and how much they want to help you, they may or may not help you figure out what it was you broke. At that point, they are not obligated to support you from the ITSM application perspective, because OOB the system works - if you broke it, it's now yours to figure out. Now, if you have a specific workflow question, then they may help you, but that's a different issue. Either way, none of that has anything to do with whether or not they are obligated to publish the implementation details and internal standards they use to write their applications. It would be nice if they did, because that makes it easier for us, but that still doesn't mean that it's ESSENTIAL that they do. You could also look at the fact that it may largely be a moving target. Many of the applications are old and evolving, and naming conventions can change over time. As they change, they can't possibly go back and update all the existing workflow that used an old naming convention. The best they can do is use the new convention for new workflow and possibly update existing workflow as they touch it. This means that no matter what naming convention they publish, it can't be considered fully accurate and will just cause people to complain that they're not following their own standards. Looked at that way, I can see why they might not even want to publish it. Now, what would be _nice_ would be if they published a best practices document that _recommends_ one or more possible naming conventions along with other best practices that may make application understanding and maintenance easier. I've heard of something like that existing, but I haven't been able to find it yet... Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of David.M Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:54 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks If the question presented to them is about workflow... are they not obligated? Yours... theirs... doesn't matter. David M Clark Remedy Programmer/Analyst >>> Lyle Taylor <tayl...@ldschurch.org> 3/24/2009 10:50 AM >>> I don't think so. They will support the applications out of the box. They won't support customizations. If you break something with your customizations, they are not obligated to help you figure out how you broke it. They might, but they might not. They are also not necessarily obligated to help you understand their workflow, unless it relates to a documented integration point. Many of the whitepapers they provide are nice, but not strictly necessary. Understand that I would love it if BMC documented their systems better. I just don't think that the statement that it is necessary that they document their naming conventions, or the implied statement that they should document other implementation details, is correct. It would be great if they did, but they are under no obligation to do so. Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of David.M Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:36 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks I think that paying for support says otherwise... except for that "easy" part. David M Clark Remedy Programmer/Analyst >>> Lyle Taylor <tayl...@ldschurch.org> 3/24/2009 10:06 AM >>> Strictly speaking, ITSM is BMC's product, and they are under no obligation to provide us with any of the nitty-gritty details about how their application was written including any naming conventions used internally, etc. The fact that BMC allows you to customize the product doesn't mean they need to support you in that effort or to make it easy for you. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Coleman, Gavin Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:56 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ITSM naming convention sucks ** "In my opinion, ITSP followed some best naming conventions." Well considering that as far as know the naming convention is not explained anywhere in the ITSP or ITSM documentation, I can't see how you can believe that. Remedy allows you up to 80 characters to name workflow items, and it seems that ITSP and ITSM does not use all of these characters. My Active Link workflow has a naming convention as follows 1. Prefix for custom work (CC_) 2. Form abbreviation (NIM:) - New Incident Console 3. Execute on abbreviation (MRC - Menu Row Choice, Btn - Button, WL - Window Loaded). If more than one Execute on is specified, then the abbreviation I use is the most relevant 4. Name of Button, Table, Field etc (E.g. Btn_OpenIncidentTask) 5. Execution Order (-000-) 6. Details of Actions (OpenHelpDesk) Thus, we get CC_NIM:Btn_OpenIncidentTask-000-OpenHelpDesk If an AL or Filter is part of a Guide, then the suffix _GUIDE is applied. If the AL or Filter calls a Guide, then the suffix _CallGuide is applied. I'm sure other people have naming conventions, but if you are providing a product that is to be released to the general public, then surely publishing the naming convention in your documentation is ESSENTIAL. Just my £0.02 worth! Gavin Coleman Senior Analyst/Programmer Computacenter (UK) Ltd Services & Solutions Hatfield Avenue Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9TW, United Kingdom T: +44 (0) 1707 631662 E: gavin.cole...@computacenter.com W: www.computacenter.com ********************************************************************** COMPUTACENTER PLC is registered in England and Wales with the registered number 03110569. Its registered office is at Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9TW COMPUTACENTER (UK) Limited is registered in England and Wales with the registered number 01584718. Its registered office i s at Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9TW COMPUTACENTER (Mid-Market) Limited is registered in England and Wales with the registered number 3434654. Its registered office is at Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9TW COMPUTACENTER (FMS) Limited is registered in England and Wales with the registered number 3798091. Its registered office is at Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9TW The contents of this email are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive mail for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you receive it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Computacenter information is available from: http://www.computacenter.com ********************************************************************** __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distri bution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
