| Author |
Message
|
| Michael Dag |
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| jidvishrawal wrote: |
| Therefore, all GM's please help us... |
Why is this so important to you? it maybe incorrect, but totally trivial there is nothing that depends on this number...
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
| Michael Dag wrote: |
| jidvishrawal wrote: |
| Therefore, all GM's please help us... |
Why is this so important to you? it maybe incorrect, but totally trivial there is nothing that depends on this number... |
Because things like this cause IT folks to begin to doubt, and this results in needless anxiety. We ponder: if such a simple thing is wrong, what else will be?
Is this rational? No. Reasonable? Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
What CSD level of 5.3 are you reporting this issue in?
Upgrade to the latest version and see if the issue is still there. ...If it is raise a PMR with IBM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jidvishrawal |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 29
Location: USA
|
I am using CSD 10. I understand very well that this is a trivial question. But, it was asked to one of my friends in an interview with IBM itself. He answered 31, and they disagreed, thats why I opened up MQ Explorer and started counting myself, every single object that it lists after creating a new queue manager. This is where the real confusion began. My observation on the last few posts says that, its being considered as a negligible question. If that is the case then well I would rather put a full stop to this topic. Thanks for all your efforts and time.
_________________
Thanks and regards,
Jiddvish Rawal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| jidvishrawal wrote: |
| I understand very well that this is a trivial question. But, it was asked to one of my friends in an interview with IBM itself. He answered 31, and they disagreed, thats why I opened up MQ Explorer and started counting myself, every single object that it lists after creating a new queue manager |
well that explains the importance part, and the correct answer was not 31 in this case... 
the correct answer would have been: "it all depends..." as usual...
for which version would you want to know this answer? V5.3 or V6.0 ?
what do you consider a default object? something that starts with SYSTEM.DEFAULT.*, SYSTEM.DEF.* or the number the command crtmqm shows on the screen?
i can think of a number of reasons why the question itself would learn the interviewer something more about the person being interviewed.
if all else fails the univeral answer to any question is always: 42
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jidvishrawal |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 29
Location: USA
|
thanks for your help and support Michael[/b]
_________________
Thanks and regards,
Jiddvish Rawal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| jidvishrawal wrote: |
| My observation on the last few posts says that, its being considered as a negligible question. |
It's an interesting question, possibly a valid question, but all of us (including the nice people at IBM) tend to be distracted by higher priority issues, like application programmers claiming their messages are going missing, designers producing MQ setups that acts like they're LU6.2 handshakes and testers wandering loose recreating objects with unconventionally obtained administrator access. IBM have particular problems with people sending them FDCs and asking how they stop them.
From a personal point of view if the queue manager creates and starts it can have as many default objects as it likes, so long as I can create application objects afterwards. If as a result of a problem investigation I determine the root cause as being a missing default object then I'll give this question more priority.
Hope this clarifies the viewpoint. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Michael Dag wrote: |
if all else fails the univeral answer to any question is always: 42 |
But how many roads must a man walk down......?????? 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jidvishrawal |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 29
Location: USA
|
Thanks Vitor for clarifying the viewpoint.. and for al the help and support
_________________
Thanks and regards,
Jiddvish Rawal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
