Re: Source Change Management or Application Life-cycle Management

I could be mis-remembering that. I seems that one made it a lot harder to apply those pre/post commands unless you had more authority than a typical developer would have. The other, I believe it was implementer, had pre/post commands as part of the promotion or deploy form. It also could have been a configuration thing as both are highly configurable.

Mark Murphy
STAR BASE Consulting, Inc.
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04/18/2016 02:23PM
Subject: Re: Source Change Management or Application Life-cycle Management


On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Mark Murphy/STAR BASE Consulting Inc. <
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Aldon - Probably my favorite though there is a large amount of overlap
between these three. This had pseudo source for non source objects like
data queues and data areas. This was basically an enhanced CL source that
allowed you to specify the create command for these non-source objects. Had
pre-and post process programs, but way more limited than Implementer. I
believe they had to be installed at a global level, no way to insert a
custom pre-or post program into the process

&#8203;Think you're mis-remembering Mark. ;)

Aldon &#8203;Pre/Post install commands are specified when defining the deployment
set.

&#8203; Can't say rather they are more/less flexible than Implementer. But
they certainly aren't don't globally. &#8203;

&#8203;Charles&#8203;