Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
I find this:
kblv wrote:
we have such procedure to document each QMGR when its been created, we found out there is QMGRs that not in the QMGR-repository...
and this:
kblv wrote:
in my case I'm can be pretty sure that all of the QMGRs have configured correctly with chl+port.
contradictory. If the procedure to enter the queue manager in the repository was not followed, how can you have such confidence that the set up convention was followed? Clearly all the queue managers your code has identified do follow this convention (including the ones omitted from the repository) but that's because your code only finds such queue managers.
But if it works for you (and more importantly your auditors) then yay. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
I know it sounds contradictory,
what happens is that there is a team that responsible for creating each QMGR in the organization, they have procedures to follow in each creating of new QMGR,
the port range + channel name procedures have been followed correctly because it is not a step that you can skip of if you want the QMGR to work fine with the apps in the organization,
but if you dont documnet the QMGR you won't see any error - until you need to find the qmgr details..
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum